Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation, presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Physical Education

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Education (1) whether he is aware that, while a slight increase is planned in the number of women students to be trained in physical education at general colleges, no such corresponding increase is envisaged at the specialists colleges of physical education; that, until further expansion is planned, it will be impossible to provide an adequate number of teachers to work in posts of senior responsibility in the country; and what plans he has for the further expansion of these specialist colleges of physical education;
(2) whether he is aware of widespread concern at the large number of girls' schools at present inadequately staffed by teachers of physical education; and if he will make a statement on the general position.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): My right hon. Friend is well aware of the serious shortage of specialist women teachers of physical education. His aim is to provide specialist training

facilities for all suitable women who can be recruited in the present circumstances, whether into the existing separate colleges of physical education or into the specialist wings of general colleges which are planned as part of the current expansion programme. The capacity of one of the specialist colleges of physical education is to be more than doubled. The supply of acceptable candidates has not justified further expansion, but my right hon. Friend will be very ready to entertain proposals for some increases at other colleges where it can be shown that candidates are forthcoming.

Miss Burton: Arising out of both those Questions, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Physical Education Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is concerned at this and welcomes the wings of the general colleges coming into place in 1960, but not as replacement of the specialist colleges? Is the Parliamentary Secretary further aware that there is not a shortage of candidates, but that the Headmistresses' Association made a special pre-selection and that, in spite of that, sixty cannot be accepted until next September?

Sir E. Boyle: The measures we are now taking mean a 50 per cent. increase in the annual intake of specialist students of physical education. If the hon. Lady likes to make any further representations, I shall be very happy to receive them.

Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware—I think I am correct—that at present 640 physical education posts in girls' schools are not filled?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot confirm that figure without notice, but I will look it up.

Four-Term School Year

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities have introduced a four-term school year; and to what extent such an arrangement requires his approval.

Sir E. Boyle: None, as far as my right hon. Friend knows, but, since such an arrangement does not require his approval, there may be one or two which have done so.

Mr. Short: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think it is about time that we stopped tying our school children to the


church calendar, with the moving Easter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year same grammar schools have five weeks' holiday at Easter? In the highly competitive, harsh world in which we live today, can the hon. Gentleman justify five weeks holiday for 18-year-olds at Easter?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that my right hon. Friend would become rather unpopular if he started dogmatising too much about the length of holidays. Authorities have discretion to divide the school year into four terms if they think it desirable. My right hon. Friend does not think that the advantages are clear enough to justify him calling for a radical change of this kind. I agree that holidays should be reasonable in length and that there is no harm in hard work in any kind of secondary school.

Loftus, Cleveland

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Education if he is now able to make a further statement about the building of a new county secondary school at Loftus in the Cleveland Parliamentary Constituency.

Sir E. Boyle: This project will be included in the local education authority's building programme for 1960-61.

Mr. Palmer: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that Answer will give satisfaction in the constituency and that it seems to mark at last the end of what has been quite a long battle?

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad that my Answer gave satisfaction. This school will complete the reorganisation of all rural schools in the area and will replace the existing very inadequate secondary school at Loftus.

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education how many schools which are called comprehensive schools now exist in England and Wales; how many other schools are part of systems designed to eliminate selective examinations and provide the advantages of comprehensive education; and if he will now set up a committee to survey these schemes and provide to local education authorities an analysis of their advantages and problems.

Sir E. Boyle: Last year, there were 86 schools classified as comprehensive in the Department's records. I am writing to the hon. Member to explain the basis of classification, which is different from that used in earlier years. I cannot answer the second part of the Question. The answer to the third part is, "No."

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, as I am sure that he is, of the increasing unpopularity of the so-called 11-plus examinations and of the fact that education committees, irrespective of their political complexion, are considering all sorts of schemes and variations for avoiding this selective and segregating examination? As different kinds of schemes now exist, for example, in the London area as compared with Leicestershire, and other things are happening in the north of the country, would it not be a good idea to give some expert advice and guidance to education committees on the basis of existing experience?

Sir E. Boyle: This is a very large subject to discuss at Question Time. A great number and variety of experiments are taking place in all parts of the country at present. It is too early to generalise about these. While I know that a great many authorities are experimenting with their own methods of selection, I believe that there is great and widespread support among people of all parties for the broad lines of the Government's White Paper.

Mr. Partridge: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people who are keenly interested in education want to regard these matters as experiments and not as a pattern for wholesale implementation, as appears to be the case with some education authorities?

Sir E. Boyle: The great danger, as my hon. Friend will agree, is premature generalisation, because, for instance, the kind of arrangements which will prove suitable for a medium-sized county borough may be very much more difficult to implement in a large county borough. and the needs and history of different areas do indeed demand different solutions.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the premature generalisations about this question have been made by opponents of comprehensive


schools, and that if he held an inquiry, such as my hon. Friend suggests, it might throw light in dark places where it is very much needed?

Sir E. Boyle: There are certainly not any premature generalisations in the White Paper, which has been widely accepted as a very fair survey of this problem.

Over-size Classes

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education what are his estimates of the size of the school population in 1965 and the average annual recruitment, wastage, and supply of trained teachers, respectively, between now and 1965, which would enable him to enforce universally the reduction in the size of classes below the maxima of 40 for primary and 30 for secondary schools in that year.

Sir E. Boyle: About 6,900,000 in the school year 1965–66. To eliminate oversize classes by that time we should need to increase the number of teachers by about 10,000 in each of the intervening years, other than the year when a slight decrease is likely as a result of the introduction of the three-year course.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures will be scrutinised and examined very carefully indeed? While we welcome the statement which he made the other night about the possibility of reducing the size of classes by the middle 1960s, is he aware that his Department has a very long history of under-estimating the magnitude of this problem and of under-estimating the numbers of teachers required, and that these figures will be scrutinised, therefore, with due care?

Sir E. Boyle: I hope that we will not under-estimate the magnitude of this problem, which is by far the biggest we have in education at present. The only thing I add is that in my statement the other night, for reasons which I gave, I was careful not to commit myself to a particular year, which is what the hon. Member has quoted in his Question.

New Schools

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister or Education how many new primary and secondary schools, respectively. are now required in England and Wales to provide all children with adequate, modern premises.

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot make a reliable estimate.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Member aware of the anxiety among education authorities at 'the serious drop in the number of schools under construction in Britain in the last two years, a drop for which the Government are responsible, and of the immediate necessity of constructing more schools, especially in those areas where new housing estates are developing? Will he keep this matter under constant review and undertake 'to give an estimate of 'the size of this problem?

Sir E. Boyle: Under the policy set out in the White Paper, it will be possible to make a start on taking out of use an increasing number of very bad, old school buildings. That is one of the main objectives of that policy. The Question speaks of "adequate, modern premises ", and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that is extremely difficult to give an estimate when the Question is phrased in such general terms.

Mr. Hale: Surely the hon. Gentleman can tell the House how many school building applications have been made and have been refused by the Government, including a large number of premises urgently required in Oldham for which permission has not yet been obtained in:a year in which the Government are talking about expansion and freeing purchasing power.

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question about Oldham, or raises wider matters, of course I will try to answer and to give him the figures. However, we should remember that, since the war, successive Governments have had to concentrate the school building programme on providing places for children who would not otherwise have been able to go to school at all. We agree that what is wanted now is to make a start on getting rid of some of the worst of the old insanitary school buildings.

Education Committees (Teacher Representatives)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities have appointed teacher representatives on the education committee; and how many have not.

Sir E. Boyle: This information is not available, but I believe that most do.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities which have appointed teacher representatives to education committees have found their experience and knowledge of great value? Will he call to the attention of those authorities which have not done so their power to do so and the advantages to education from co-opting teachers on education committees?

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member knows, the difficulty is that there is no requirement under the 1944 Act that local education authorities should do this. But I can tell him that my right hon. Friend is sure that it is a good thing for teachers to be represented on education committees, and I hope that some education authorities will take note of this statement.

St. Minver School, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education what reply he has given to representations about the inadequate staffing of St. Minver County Primary School, Cornwall.

Sir E. Boyle: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter which my right hon. Friend has sent on the subject to the Wadebridge Rural District Council.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this school of 120 children is a mixed school with a seven-year age range and has recently had its staff reduced from four to three teachers? Does he not think that that is a disgrace in this age, especially in a parish which is the playground of the well-to-do?

Sir E. Boyle: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I has ever left the House in any doubt that we regard cutting down the size of classes as still the prime and most important objective of education policy, and I hope that improving conditions will make it easier to help a school like this.

Sir H. Roper: As St. Minver School is in my constituency, may I thank my hon. Friend for writing to me about it? The view has been expressed locally that some sacrifice should be made in the staffing of the higher grade schools in

order to provide relief in the primary schools. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that view?

Sir E. Boyle: In the country as a whole, in recent years we have been able to make considerable improvement in the staffing standards in primary schools without doing this at the cost of the staffing standards in secondary schools. I must say that I think that we have been absolutely right to take this stand.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Car Tourist Allowance

Mr. Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to this country in foreign exchange of raising the car tourist allowance from £30 to £40 in foreign currency.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): It is impossible to estimate.

Mr. Freeth: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for a typist's error in my original version of the Question. The figure of £30 should be £35. Since the price of petrol on the Continent of Europe has gone up, and since each car going abroad usually contains more than one person, will my hon. Friend recommend his right hon. Friend to raise the figure from £35 to £40 in the year beginning October next?

Mr. Erroll: The Government do not feel that they are able at present to increase the allowance.

Confidential Waste Paper (Disposal)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the result of his inquiries into methods of contracting for, and disposing of, confidential waste documents.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): The arrangements for disposal of confidential waste paper, including Income Tax returns, are designed to ensure that it is pulped at a British mill under conditions which preserve its confidentiality. In the case of the Income Tax returns found by the hon. Gentleman on Cardiff dock, it is clear that the stipulated rules were not complied with, and investigations are proceeding. But the incident has Shown


that the present system can be improved, and my right hon. Friend has therefore set in train a review of the arrangements in the Departments concerned. My right hon. Friend is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling his attention to this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: That is satisfactory as far as it goes. Has this procedure been criticised before by firms in the industry, and has that criticism been brought to the notice of those responsible for issuing the contracts? If that is so, can the Financial Secretary tell us why action was not taken before I found these papers?

Mr. Simon: I made inquiries about that and I was told that no criticisms before this incident were received by the Headquarters Contract Department at the Post Office. Since then, I have seen a letter criticising the present ararngements, and I do not doubt that they leave something to be desired.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Is it not possible to find another word to express what my hon. and learned Friend means by "confidentiality "?

Mr. Simon: I stand rebuked.

Dock, Greenock

Mr. Nairn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Sir Alexander Gibb and. Partners, who were instructed by his Department to make contact with Messrs. T. F. Burns and Partners, the consultant engineers of Inch Green Investigating Company, to examine the technical aspects of the proposed dock at Greenock, were instructed early this year by the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee to take no further action meantime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Erroll: I am unable to provide the information for which my hon. Friend asks without disclosing confidential details of the application for financial assistance made by the promoters of this project. Since the application is still under consideration by the Development Areas Tr00E9;asury Advisory Committee, there is nothing that I can usefully add to the replies which my right hon. Friend and I have already given.

Mr. Nairn: Does my hon. Friend not agree that a satisfactory result of the tech-

nical examination might have some bearing on the final decision and, if this examination is done now, it might save up to three months' delay if, or when, the scheme is approved?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think I can add to what I have said. There are financial considerations to be taken into account as well.

Hungarian Financial Agreement (Bonded Debt)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of Her Majesty's Government's undertaking to bear in mind the default of the Hungarian Government on their external bonded debt to this country, why no steps were taken to include this matter in the trade agreement with Hungary in 1956, now shortly to be reviewed; and when it was last discussed by Her Majesty's Treasury with the Hungarian Legation in London.

Mr. Erroll: Two agreements were concluded with the Hungarian Government in 1956, namely, a three-year trade arrangement and a financial agreement covering United Kingdom financial claims against Hungary other than bonded debt. During the financial negotiations, the Hungarian Government offered, as part of a settlement covering all United Kingdom claims, to re-purchase over a period of years, for a small percentage of their nominal value, certain Hungarian bonds held in the United Kingdom. These proposals bore no relation to the contractual terms of the bonds and were unacceptable to the Council of Foreign Bondholders and the League Loans Committee. In the circumstances, the two Governments agreed that bonded debt should not be included in the financial settlement and that the bondholders' rights would in no way be affected by the conclusion of the financial agreement.
The Hungarian Legation has recently been reminded of the obligations of its Government in regard to bonded debt.

Mr. Teeling: Am I to understand from my hon. Friend, therefore, that nothing has happened in the last three years from the Hungarian side? Since there is presumably no matter of principle involved as the Hungarians did make an offer, does he not think, if we are about to make another trade agreement to allow more


imports from Hungary, it is high time that we tried to elicit another offer from the Hungarian Government?

Mr. Erroll: Until the offer looks like being one which would be possibly acceptable to the Council of Foreign Bondholders, we do not think there is much point in pressing the matter if that would be to the detriment of an agreement on trade. At present, therefore, there is no intention of linking the trade discussions in any way with negotiations on bonded debt.

European Free Trade Area and Common Market

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, arising out of the Resolution passed at Strasbourg at a meeting of the Council of Europe's Consultative Assembly calling on the member Governments to form an association guaranteeing free trade in Europe, what proposals Her Majesty's Government has for setting up an organising body for the purpose of implementing this Resolution; and whether he will make a statement.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): This Resolution did not call upon Her Majesty's Government to take action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member. The Government do, however, welcome the continued interest shown by the Consultative Assembly in the problem of maintaining European economic cooperation and of associating the European Economic Community with other members of O.E.E.C. on a multilateral basis.

Mr. Bellenger: Nevertheless, does not the Resolution indicate that there is a considerable feeling among the European nations that the Free Trade Area proposal and, presumably, Her Majesty's Government's proposals should be reconsidered? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some action to bring this into prominent discussion?

Mr. Maudling: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Resolution shows what a wide measure of support there has always been for the Free Trade Area idea, but, of course, in these matters one cannot move without, in effect, unanimity.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making, perhaps after the Whitsun Recess, a further statement on the negotiations which have

taken place since we last debated this matter in the House three months ago?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations between the Commonwealth Governments and Her Majesty's Government are taking place with a view to formulating proposals for a European Free Trade Area when negotiations are resumed with the Common Market nations.

Mr. Maudling: We continue to keep in close touch with Commonwealth Governments about economic developments in Europe.

Mr. Bellenger: Is that all the right hon. Gentleman has to tell the House? Has he seen the two articles written by his right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) who, with other prominent individuals, went to New Zealand recently and found that there was considerable agreement among Commonwealth nations for participation in a European Free Trade Area? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, not lag behind his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that any Commonwealth Government would contemplate being associated in a European Free Trade Area. As regards coordination with the Commonwealth, there are official level talks going on at this moment in London.

Sir J. Hutchison: Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend think it worth while having some form of Commonwealth conference, as the situation has so much altered since the problem was discussed previously? Would it not be wise to ascertain the up-to-date views of our partners in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Maudling: We are, in fact, doing that today.

Mr. Jay: Is it not dangerous to let this whole matter drift much longer? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from anything else, American industry is showing an increasing tendency to develop productive capacity on the continent of Europe rather than in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Maudling: I quite agree about the danger in letting matters drift, and the Government are well aware of that.

Mr. Leather: Is it not a fact that the Common Market countries are already making direct approaches to other members of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, if we do not try to make some coordinated approach between ourselves, will not Britain end by being out of both?

Mr. Maudling: To the best of my knowledge, that is not the fact.

Mr. Leather: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what imports from the Commonwealth were most adversely affected by the terms proposed for United Kingdom membership of the European Common Market; and what was the total value of such imports, item by item, in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Maudling: I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, since United Kingdom membership of the European Common Market has never been proposed.

Mr. Leather: If the figures for the most important Commonwealth imports which would be affected by our joining the Common Market are known—I presume they must be known to my right hon. Friend—do they not show that the real core of the problem is a comparatively small percentage of our total Commonwealth trade? Therefore, is not the problem, in the end, nothing like as big as it appears to be at first sight?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir; I am sorry to say that they show nothing of the sort. In fact, throughout the discussions, what has been one of the greatest difficulties is that the United Kingdom could not possibly accept a common commercial policy settled by a majority in Europe. where we are in a minority, which would settle our commercial relations with the Commonwealth.

Mr. H. Wilson: I fully support what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but will he say whether, in connection with the Question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), the Government have given close study to the proposal made from these benches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) in the debate on 12th February last about associating Commonwealth trade with Common Market items by groups of

commodities rather than looking at the thing right along the line? Has that been studied?

Mr. Maudling: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that all these possibilities are being studied. One of the main topics in the current series of Commonwealth consultations now taking place in London is the whole question of our relation with Europe.

Distribution of Industry (Sunderland)

Mr. Willey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, has been made available to alleviate unemployment in Sunderland.

Mr. Erroll: None, Sir.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in Sunderland has, unfortunately, risen again? In view of this, will he see that his Department pays particular attention to our difficulties?

Mr. Erroll: D.A.T.A.C. will, of course, be very glad to examine any applications submitted to it.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approaches he has received from interested persons or organisations requesting that, as he has removed Purchase Tax from maintenance television tubes, he should do the same for maintenance valves, in view of the exact similarity in the arguments for the abolition of Purchase Tax on these articles.

Mr. Erroll: None, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: But is the Minister aware that the arguments used with regard to television tubes and replacement tubes can be applied exactly to radio valves? If the Chancellor thought it wise to take the tax off television tubes, why should he not take it off the valves which go in the same set? Exactly the same arguments apply.

Mr. Erroll: The trouble is that the arguments are very different. The


cathode ray tube is a very much more expensive item of equipment. There is also the reconditioning problem which has been removed by eliminating Purchase Tax on cathode ray tubes. Further, radio valves are frequently sold separately for people to build into sound receivers of their own manufacture. I mention all these points to show that the two arguments are not at all the same.

Penicillin

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average annual dollar cost to the United Kingdom of licences for the manufacture of penicillin in Great Britain.

Mr. Erroll: I regret we have no figures, either on the basis of Exchange Control authorisations or of actual remittances to the United States, which distinguish payments by United Kingdom manufacturers for licences for the production of penicillin in Great Britain.

Mr. Robinson: Is it not anomalous that there should be any form of commercial tribute of this kind to the United States in respect of a product which derives entirely from British research? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that he ought to make some effort to collect these important figures?

Mr. Erroll: One must remember that the United States made a considerable contribution in the development of the process, and it is largely in connection with the United States development that royalties are quite properly paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Factories, Scotland

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed his inquiries into the matter of independent arbitration for tenants of his Department's factories in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I shall need some further time to consider this matter which concerns a number of Departments.

Miss Herbison: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the tenants of Government factories in Scotland feel that they are suffering injustice since those in England and Wales have the right to go to arbitration in the matter of rents but Scottish tenants have not? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea when his inquiries will be completed?

Sir D. Eccles: It is awkward that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, does not apply to Scotland. It raises a rather difficult problem which concerns the Minister of Supply and the Service Departments, but I hope that before long we shall have a common policy.

European Common Market (Commonwealth Commodities)

Mr. Leather: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the principal commodities imported into the United Kingdom from Commonwealth countries on which both the United Kingdom and the six Common Market countries have zero tariffs; and what percentage they represent of total Commonwealth imports.

Sir D. Eccles: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the principal commodities which are duty-free when imported into the United Kingdom and which are expected to be duty-free when imported into the Common Market. Such commodities account for about 15 per cent. of United Kingdom imports from the Commonwealth in 1958.
Following is the list:
There is set out below, in order of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature, a list of the duty-free items where United Kingdom imports from Commonwealth and other preferential sources exceeded £500,000 in 1958. Since the Common Market Tariff has not yet been fully elaborated, the list of items assumed to be duty-free is based on the best available information, and may in the event prove inaccurate. Where import figures for the precise definitions below are not available, they have been estimated. The calculations exclude gold and precious stones, which are not specified in the Trade Accounts.
Within this list by far the largest items are wool, natural rubber and unwrought copper. Other large items in order of magnitude, are jute, cotton, furskins, raw hides, and nickel.

Brussels Nomenclature Number
Description


ex
01.01
Live horses, asses, mule and hinnies:




Horses:




Pure-bred animals for breeding.


ex
12.01
Oil seeds, oleaginous fruit, whole or broken:




Cotton seed; rape seed; tung nuts.



25.02
Iron pyrites (including cupreous iron pyrites), unroasted.


ex
25.10
Natural mineral calcium phosphates, natural alumium calcium phosphates, apatite and phosphatic chalk:




Other than ground (except natural calcium phosphates not in sacks).


ex
25.26
Mica, including splittings; mica waste:




Blocks, films and splittings


ex
25.32
Mineral substances not elsewhere specified or included; broken pottery:




Infusorial earths, siliceous fossil meals and similar siliceous earths; perlite, obsidian and pitchstone (crushed, ground, powdered or graded)




(Exceptions: Strontiamite, celestine, finely powdered glaena).


ex
26.02
Slag, dross, scalings and similar waste from the manufacture of iron and steel:




Except slag "wool "and dross "wool "and other mineral "wool".


ex
40.01
Natural rubber, balata, gutta percha and similar natural gums, raw (including latex, whether or not stabilised):




Natural rubber (including rubber latex, whether or not stabilised); gutta percha.


ex
41.01
Raw hides and skins (fresh, salted, dried, pickled or limed), whether or not split, including sheepskins in the wool:




Unsplit hides and skins other than kid and goat skins.


ex
43.01
Raw furskins:




Other than fine furskins:




Fresh or dried.


ex
53.01
Sheep's or lambs' wool, not carded or combed:




Raw, cleaned, scoured or carbonised but not otherwise worked.


ex
53.02
Other animal hair (fine or coarse) not carded or combed:




Raw, cleaned, scoured or carbonised but not otherwise worked.


ex
55.01
Cotton, not carded or combed:




Not bleached or dyed.


ex
55.03
Cotton waste (including pulled or garnetted rags), not carded or combed:




Containing not more than 33⅓ per cent. by weight of man-made fibres.


ex
57.03
Jute, raw or processed but not spun; tow and waste of jute (including pulled or garnetted rags or ropes):




Jute, tow and waste of jute, not carded or combed:




Containing not more than 33i per cent. by weight of man-made fibres


ex
71.05
Silver, including silver gilt and platinum-plated silver, unwrought or semi-manufactured:




Silver bullion.



73.03
Scrap and waste metal of iron or steel.


ex
74.01
Copper matte; cement copper; unwrought copper (refined or not); copper waste and scrap:




Except unwrought copper alloys.


ex
75.01
Nickel mattes, nickel speiss and other intermediate products of nickel metallurgy; unwrought nickel (excluding electro-plating anodes); nickel waste and scrap:




Except unwrought nickel-copper alloys containing 60 per cent. or less, by weight, of nickel.


ex
80.01
Unwrought tin; tin waste and scrap:




Except unwrought tin alloys

Industrial Sites, Lanarkshire

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now identify the sites suitable for industry at Douglas and Douglas, West, in the county of Lanark.

Sir D. Eccles: Before I can say which sites would be suitable for industrial use I need certain further information from the County Council. I will let my hon. Friend know immediately this is received.

Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 70 houses, of which 50 are subsidised, are now standing empty? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to draw this facility to the attention of industrialists who may be considering the expansion or transfer of their factories so that they can take advantage of this and bring industry to this village which is losing half its employment and a third of its people in a matter of months?

Sir D. Eccles: I will. As soon as we get information about the facilities and services available to these sites, we shall be able to talk to industrialists.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether the Government are taking note of the kind of cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland)? This is a case of the closure of a pit upon which a village is entirely dependent which, when closed, throws the whole community into distress. Are the Government giving attention to this matter, and is the right hon. Gentleman's Department consulting with the Ministry of Power to ensure that when pits are closed they have plans to foster alternative industries?

Sir D. Eccles: We also keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in this matter. We have identified several sites in this area and I hope that very soon these sites will be equipped with facilities which we shall be able to offer.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the failure of the Government to deal with questions of this kind in relation to coal sufficiently in advance, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when it comes to closing cotton mills under the Government's policy he will bear in mind the lessons of what has happened in the coal industry?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will.

Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the necessity of maintaining an increasing employment in the textile machine-making industry, he will limit the payment of re-equipment subsidy to machinery manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 5th May.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great concern in the textile machine-making industry about the diminution of export orders and the contraction of output? Although one realises that rules must have exceptions, surely he is prepared to tell the House that his regulations will provide

that priority will be given to home purchases where purchases are made with a Government subsidy?

Sir D. Eccles: Last year, we exported £40 million worth of textile machinery and I understand that the export order books of the industry are in a fairly good state. I do not think that I can do what the hon. Gentleman asks, because the essence of this proposal is that the industry should be made competitive. We must, therefore, allow the industry to buy the machines which it thinks most useful.

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent cotton textile firms, which have wholly closed down for a temporary period prior to the appointed day, will be enabled to qualify for assistance by a partial re-opening.

Sir D. Eccles: The precise terms of eligibility for compensation will be laid down in the detailed schemes to be prepared by the proposed agency after consulting the section concerned. The object is, however, to remove excess capacity irrespective of whether a firm is actually in production at the time.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some considerable time has passed since he threw out his vague proposals to the House and that no one in Lancashire professes to understand them? Judging from the Answer which he has given to the House he clearly does not understand them himself. Surely we should have some indication as soon as possible about what his proposals are.

Sir D. Eccles: I hope to publish a White Paper quite shortly, but I think that the lion. Gentleman would agree that these schemes need to be worked out with both sides of industry. What the Government had to do first was to give the broad indication of what extent the help from the Exchequer would be. Now that we have done that, detailed work on the schemes can go forward.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give us a more specific answer about the date on which the White Paper is likely to be available? Surely he agrees with my hon. Friend that at the moment there is a great deal of dubiety about what this scheme is and what it amounts to. While no doubt there are negotiations to take place in


the industry itself, they should have started a long time ago. A lot of Government money is now involved.

Sir D. Eccles: I hope that the White Paper will be published next Thursday. I think that it must be clear to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that until the Government had decided and announced the scale of their assistance it was not possible to work out the detailed schemes.

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent, in the course of his discussions with the employers about the reorganisation of the cotton textile industry, proposals were considered for payment of subsidy to firms that carried on business instead of to those closing down.

Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Member is asking whether we considered subsidising the industry at its present size instead of compensating firms who eliminate capacity, the answer is "No, Sir".

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have never suggested anything of the kind. What I am suggesting is that it is better to subsidise production than to subsidise contraction. This has always been the fatal error of Government policy, that they allow contraction to take place and then pay compensation for the contraction instead of encouraging and maintaining production. Why does not he do something like I have suggested?

Sir D. Eccles: The Cotton Board undertook a study of the surplus capacity which had to be eliminated. There are representatives of the trade unions on the Board. It is an agreed estimate of the surplus capacity on which the schemes are now being worked out. If we did not eliminate surplus capacity. we should have continuing trouble.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the recently announced proposals on the future of the cotton industry will apply to Scottish manufacturers of cotton products or cotton mixtures.

Sir D. Eccles: The proposals apply to Scotland as well as to England.

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the Cotton Industry Reorganisation Scheme,

he will ensure that compensation for loss of office or employment for the workers in the industry will be not less favourable than that recently made to officers of the Regular Army under the Government's scheme of compensation for displaced Army officers.

Sir D. Eccles: As I made clear in my statement of 23rd April, the terms of this compensation are a matter for the employers to settle directly with the trade unions concerned.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but whilst appreciating that, is the Minister aware that the settlement for the displaced Army officers was a fair and reasonable one, and that if such a settlement could be adopted for these displaced textile workers, I am sure that both the trade unionists and the workers in the industry would be pleased? Could he not recommend that they try to adopt as a means of settlement the same financial agreement as was adopted for the ex-Army officers?

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot accept that there is a parallel between the two— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—but I hope and believe that the settlement for the cotton operatives will be fair and reasonable.

Mr. Jay: But is there not a parallel between the two? Both these classes of persons are displaced through no fault of their own.

Sir D. Eccles: An industrial settlement is something which the trade unions must look at with the employers in the usual way. Let us see what they put up to us.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Minister think, then, that a man who gives fifty years of his life to an industry is of less importance than a man who gives twenty years to the Army?

Sir D. Eccles: Not at all, but public service and industrial service are different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] It may well be that the cotton industry wishes to introduce various conditions which would not have applied to the Army.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the committee to consider the question of consumer protection.

Sir D. Eccles: I am waiting until I can announce the terms of reference and the name of the chairman together.

Mr. Willey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be in that position, because we have waited quite a long time?

Sir D. Eccles: I hope very shortly, as we are half-way there.

Hire Purchase (Advertisements)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has received concerning the breaking of the law that all 'hire-purchase advertisements must state plainly the total cash price, the deposit payable and the amount and number of instalments; and what replies have been made by his Department.

Sir D. Eccles: Apart from a few reports of suspected breaches of the law my Department has made inquiries on its own initiative into the observance of the Act. There has so far been no case where the Board of Trade would feel justified in prosecuting.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that that reply is really unsatisfactory? Does he know that the Retail Trading Standards Association and the National Association of Retail Furnishers say that there are many infringements of this, due to design and not to ignorance? When does he hope that his Department might take action instead of letting unscrupulous people get away with it?

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot accept the critical comments of the Retail Trading Standards Association. I have looked at them carefully. If I thought that there were cases not due either to ignorance or misunderstanding, there would be grounds for prosecution.

Export Credits (European Countries)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest arrangements made by him through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, or otherwise, to finance exports by British exporters to European countries, indicating how far the same facilities exist in regard to all European countries; and, where there are differences what official

facilities exist in relation to each particular European country.

Sir D. Eccles: Exports from this country are not financed by the Government but by the commercial banks or from other private resources. Such financing is often assisted by the guarantee of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The Department's facilities are available for exports to all European countries though special terms apply to special cases.

Mr. Hughes: In this matter does the President of the Board of Trade realise that the claims of all parts of Britain are not identical? Will he have regard to the special claims of certain areas, such as the North-East of Scotland, to facilities of the kind mentioned in the Question?

Sir D. Eccles: I hardly think that we could vary the terms of insurance according to the source of the exports. All exports are equally good far us and we do all we can to promote them from all areas.

Safety Standards (Toys)

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the report of the committee set up by the Portsmouth Junior Chamber of Commerce to inquire into the causes of accidents to children, that the majority are attributable to unsafe toys, a copy of which has been sent to him; and whether he will consider the formation of a toy advisory group to examine toys for safety and suitability and then issue seals of approval.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 5th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin).

Mr. Janner: But has the Minister seen the report which was issued by the committee referred to in the Question? Would he say now that he intends to set up an advisory committee, in view of the exhaustive inquiry made by that committee which resulted in proving that these toys were extremely dangerous from the point of view of accidents to children?

Sir D. Eccles: Some of the recommendations of the report come within the purview of the Home Secretary, and it


may be that the British Standards Institution could work out an effective specification for safety for toys. If it could, we would certainly look at it, but my right hon. Friend and I are studying these recommendations.

Development Areas (Industrial Buildings)

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why the Digest of Statistics for February and March did not contain a table setting out the statistics about industrial building in Development Areas;
(2) if he will in the future provide in the Digest of Statistics the same analysis of industrial building by standard regions and Development Areas as was the normal practice until December, 1958.

Sir D. Eccles: In future this information will he published quarterly in the Board of Trade Journal.

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new Government-financed factory building schemes, including extensions, and how many private schemes, have been approved in Development Areas in 1959; and what were the corresponding figures for the same period of 1958.

Sir D. Eccles: Fifty-two Government.. financed and 81 private, compared with seven and 86 for the same period last year. But in terms of area and employment both the Government and the private schemes are about twice as big as last year's.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the employment figures for each year?

Sir D. Eccles: Adding these two together—and I hope that I am correct —the figure last year was 6,300 and this year it is nearly 14,000.

Factory Extension, Simonstone

Mr. Fort: asked the President of the Board of Trade what financial arrangements the Board of Trade is making in connection with the large extension to the Mullard factory at Simonstone.

Sir D. Eccles: The Board of Trade built the original Mullard factory at Simonstone where the firm manufacture

television tubes. I welcome the firm's decision to build nearby a new factory, which will employ eventually up to 1,000 workers, to provide the glass for these tubes. Discussions on whether any Government assistance is necessary have not yet been completed.

Mr. Fort: Is it expected that Messrs. Mullard will install the same high standard of equipment and conditions necessary for the new processes as are established for the television tube processes in the existing factory?

Sir D. Eccles: This firm has a very well-known reputation and I am confident that it will take all possible care about the conditions in the factory.

Distribution of Industry (Derelict Sites)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many schemes for the clearance of derelict sites under Section 5 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, whether by his Department or by grant, have been approved this year; and what is the total cost of such schemes.

Sir D. Eccles: None as yet, but over 50 are under discussion with local authorities.

Mr. Jay: Is it not several months since the Government announced that they would approve such grants? How soon does the right hon. Gentleman think the work will actually start on any of these schemes?

Sir D. Eccles: Applications are being dealt with urgently, but this is a matter on which we must get agreement with each local authority before work can start.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless the Government are much more urgent in their activities than they show signs of being there will be many more derelict sites in Lancashire before very long?

Sir D. Eccles: We have the Lancashire problem in mind and I assure the hon. Member that we are considering it urgently.

Refinery Project, Hampshire

Dr. King: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the unemployment in South Hampshire, he


will urge the Caltex Company to reconsider its decision to postpone the refinery project for which he has granted an industrial certificate.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. The decision must rest with the company.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 17,250 trade unionists in south-east Hampshire have recently signed a petition urging the Government to do all they can to bring the Caltex refinery proposals into operation? Is he aware that they would mean work for 1,500 constructional and building workers for two years and thereafter work for 400 workers in permanence? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Caltex Company to bring this refinery to a place in Hampshire which is badly in need of work of all kinds?

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware that this is a very large project but, as the Company has said:
After re-examining its refinery capacity requirements, the company is unable to announce … a definite date for construction of the proposed refinery.
It may be that these requirements will change.

Trade Mission to Moscow

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, at his forthcoming trade talks with representatives of the Soviet Government's Ministry of Trade in Moscow, he will invite a trade delegation of Soviet trade experts to visit this country, as guests of Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of visiting British factories, workshops, etc., and generally looking at British industry.

Sir D. Eccles: I will bear this suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC SERVANTS AND MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PAY)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a body analogous with the Coleraine Committee to review regularly the remuneration of other public servants, members of the Boards of nationalised industries, and Ministers of the Crown.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The method of appointing a Committee of independent persons of high standing to advise on levels of remuneration is one which might well be used, in certain circumstances, outside the special case of the higher Civil Service. The Question of its extension to these other groups however needs further thought.

Mr. Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the salaries paid to many of the public servants referred to in my Question are completely out of line with the responsibilities of their appointments and that unless the salaries are kept under review the field of recruitment of able men to fill these very important appointments will become very narrow?

The Prime Minister: All these matters must be considered. What we have done is to deal first with the immediate problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIOACTIVITY

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister the latest levels of strontium 90 for the various regions of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Prime Minister (1) the measurements for the deposition of strontium 90 over the last twelve months in an area including the Tees Valley and the Cleveland Hills;
(2) the maximum and minimum measurements for the deposition of strontium 90 in the United Kingdom over the last twelve months; and where these measurements were obtained.

The Prime Minister: It would perhaps help the House if I were to explain the method by which these figures are reached. About half a dozen monitoring stations are established in different parts of the country (including one in Scotland) and at these the deposition of strontium 90 is measured in relation to the rainfall. It has been found that the amount of deposition of strontium 90 varies with the rainfall. It is therefore possible to estimate what amount of strontium 90 is likely to be deposited in any area in the United Kingdom for which the rainfall is known.
In addition, samples are taken of strontium 90 in food (especially milk), herbage and soil in many different areas and these supply complementary information. The figures are published from time to time and copies are available in the Library.
I might add that the Tees Valley and the Cleveland Hills are not in an area of very heavy rainfall.
The maximum deposition of strontium 90 observed has been at two stations on Snowdon, both of which are at a high altitude. The latest Atomic Energy Authority report on this subject gives the figures for these two stations for the first six months of 1958 (8·3 and 9·6 millicuries of strontium 90 per square kilometre). These levels were some four to five times the representative value for the country as a whole. This reflects the higher rainfall of that area.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Prime Minister, in answer to the second part of Question No. 46, give similar figures for Scotland to those which he has given for Wales?

The Prime Minister: I gave the figures only for these two very high stations on a mountain. With regard to Scotland as a whole, they are given in the general figures.

Mr. Palmer: Would the Minister not agree that it would be useful if rather wide publicity were given to these detailed figures which, he says, are available to us in a particular place?

The Prime Minister: They are available and they are published.

Mr. Mason: Is it not also true that the Prime Minister keeps giving the House figures which are at least twelve months old—as the right hon. Gentleman stated, for example, for mid-1958—and that the serious fall-out of radioactive strontium 90 has taken place in the last eight or nine months since the project "Argus "missile tests and the Russian "dirty "tests? Therefore, will not the Prime Minister try to inform the House with more up-to-date figures and point out that strontium 90 is having more effect than he is leading us to believe?

The Prime Minister: Of course, there has been this additional fall-out, but the figure must be left for the experts to work out. It takes about three months to complete a determination of strontium 90.

Then there must be the interpretation of the results in relation to each other. To be of any value, the results should cover a sufficiently lung period to iron out temporary or short-term effects of unusual phenomena. I could not, therefore, ask those who are responsible for this to alter what they regard as the right scientific processes which should be followed.

Mr. Gaitskell: In the statement which the Prime Minister gave the House some little time ago, the impression was created in the minds of most of us that the extent of strontium 90 deposited in this country had doubled within a year. Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that that is not the case and that the doubling was over a shorter period, from May, 1958? Is it not possible to indicate the changes in strontium 90 per unit of rainfall per inch, or whatever other appropriate indicator is suitable?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the second part of the question, I will ask my advisers whether that is a practicable and sound scientific method. It might be helpful if I were to try to summarise what the Medical Research Council said about the hazards to man of radioactive strontium in fall-out. In paragraphs 281 to 284 of its Report. the Medical Research Council said that the maximum permissible level of strontium 90 in the human skeleton accepted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection corresponds to 1,000 strontium units, but that this is the maximum permissible level for adults in special occupations. It is not suitable for application to the population as a whole or to children.
The Medical Research Council concluded that the maximum allowable concentration of strontium in the bones of the population should not be the figure of 1,000, but for working purposes should be 100, and that in the light of knowledge at present available, immediate consideration would be required if the concentration showed signs of rising greatly beyond ten. It has not reached anything like that yet.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Prime Minister what measures have been taken to reduce nuclear radiation, other than that caused by bomb tests; and by how


much it is expected that this type of radiation will be decreased.

The Prime Minister: It is not possible to reduce radiation from the principal source to which mankind is exposed, namely the natural background.
As regards the medical uses, Lord Adrian's Committee has just issued an interim report which needs careful study. I would also refer my hon. and gallant Friend by way of example to the Code of Practice for the Protection of Persons exposed to Ionising Radiations. As regards industrial radiation, various measures have been taken. It is the policy of the Government that all operations involving the use of ionising radiations shall be carried out in such a way as to keep to a minimum the extent to which persons are exposed to such radiations.

Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent it is expected that these measures will be effective? If they amount to one unit, will they not annul the increase of radiation Which has been brought about by the nuclear tests?

The Prime Minister: That is a calculation which my hon. and gallant Friend has made. Obviously, we must do our best to reduce what it is within our power to reduce. What is within our power is this very large amount from medical uses, a considerable amount from industrial uses and this amount from the nuclear explosions. All these we must try to reduce. We should, however, keep them in proportion, although nobody is more anxious than I that the negotiations at Geneva should have the effect of taking out the last, although by no means the most important, of these three.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is it not probable that since the dawn of human history there have been wide variations in the amount of nuclear radiation to which the human frame has been exposed and that it varies in different parts of the world? Is it not fair to deduce, therefore, that the human frame is most adaptable? Would not public opinion be reassured if this was stressed to a rather greater degree?

The Prime Minister: We must try to keep these things in perspective. I have tried to give the facts as objectively as possible. At the same time, for a great

number of reasons, of which the medical is by no means the greatest, I would like to see, if we can only get it, an agreement between the great Powers dealing first with inspection and control, a really effective agreement among the great Powers, not merely from the medical point of view, but, perhaps even more important, from the political point of view of an advance in our relations.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not be misleading to speak about the adaptability of the human organism over centuries of exposure to radiation? If the changes take place gradually enough, is it not scientifically established that adaptation is easy, but that if the changes take place too rapidly they become fatal?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. When we take the proportions, however, they, too, must be kept in perspective. They are still about 100, 22 and 1¼ or 1½.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Prime Minister what are the extremes of variation in natural radiation; and how the extent of such variation compares with the additional radiation caused by nuclear tests.

The Prime Minister: Natural radiation varies greatly in different parts of the world and, curiously enough, according to the buildings in which people live. In certain parts of the world, quite apart from the effect of the buildings, the natural radiation amounts to ten times the normal world level. Apart from some comparatively small local variations, the normal world level applies throughout the United Kingdom. We do not have these great extremes that some countries have. As regards buildings, natural radiation is normally lowest in wooden houses; the body dose in brick or concrete houses is about 25 per cent. higher than outdoors and the dose is somewhat higher again in stone and especially in granite houses.
With regard to the second part of the Question, radiation from fall-out is now estimated to be somewhere between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. of the normal natural background radiation to which man, so far as we know, has always been exposed.

Captain Pilkington: Is it then possible that the present level of fallout is less


dangerous than if one were travelling about on the Continent or living in particular buildings?

The Prime Minister: Certain places have very high radiation. The risks are greater but people have lived there and no doubt the adaptability of the human race allows them to do so.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement would seem to account for the splendid qualities of people from Aberdeen and that this radiation might be not wholly without benefit?

The Prime Minister: When I saw only yesterday this very remarkable and interesting figure about granite, my mind turned to Aberdeen.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the latest information available, it is still the case that the proportions of radiation deriving from nuclear tests, from other man-made radiation, and from natural causes, are approximately in the proportion of one unit, 23 units and 100 units, respectively.

The Prime Minister: The proportion of 1, 22 and 100 may have been somewhat affected by the most recent tests, but the change would not amount to more than making the figure of 1 unit something between 1 and 2.

Captain Pilkington: In view of the figures given by my right hon. Friend, would it not be much more logical for the nuclear campaigners to worry rather less about radiation from nuclear tests and more about natural and man-made radiation, particularly in view of the fact that these nuclear tests are held only to perfect a deterrent weapon which both sides of the House are agreed is the best hope for peace?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that they can do much good by worrying about natural radiation, but I think that the very large figure of man-made radiation, other than nuclear—twenty times that of nuclear—is a source which we should be continually working at.

Mr. Chetwynd: In spite of the refinements of the arguments put by the right hon. Gentleman and all these figures, is the Prime Minister aware that most

people in the country are extremely anxious and worried about the present situation?

The Prime Minister: I have never been able to ascertain quite the view of the party opposite on these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT, SCOTLAND

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what was the nature of the proposals for dealing with unemployment in Scotland suggested to him at his meeting with the delegation from the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 2nd May; and what was the nature of his reply.

The Prime Minister: The delegation urged the need for special Government measures to reduce Scotland's dependence on the heavy industries and to attract new expanding industries. I described what had already been achieved in these directions and promised to consider certain points made by the delegation.

Mr. Hughes: Did not the Scottish T.U.C. convince the Prime Minister that a good deal of this unemployment is due to the lack of planning in Government policy?

The Prime Minister: Far from convincing me, the Scottish T.U.C. did not even put up that proposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW CUNARD LINERS

Mr. Short: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter addressed to him by the Secretary of the Tyneside Chamber of Commerce regarding the replacement of the Queen liners.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen).

Mr. Short: But that does not tell us anything. Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the resolution contained in the letter was carried unanimously by a conference representing both sides of industry on the Tyne, the commercial life of the area, the local authorities and hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the two firms concerned


are not allowed to tender for these liners there will be widespread disappointment on Tyneside?

The Prime Minister: First of all, we have to receive some detailed proposals from the Cunard company and discuss with them the financial arrangements.

KENYA

Hola Detention Camp (Deaths)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mrs. CASTLE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the action he proposes to take following the inquest on the deaths of 11 detainees at Hola detention camp, Kenya.

Mr. K. ROBINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a statement on the deaths of 11 detainees at Hola Camp, Kenya.

Mr. BRAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action the Kenya Government intends to take to ensure that there is no repetition of the incidents which led to the death recently of 11 detainees at Hola, Kenya.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Questions Nos. 72, 76 and 77.
The coroner found that illegal assaults had taken place against the detainees, but that specific offences by known persons had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Attorney-General of Kenya is considering what further investigations are necessary and whether any prosecutions should be launched. I do not wish to say anything which might prejudice any criminal proceedings on which he decides. The Governor has told me, however, that he wishes to obtain expert advice on the future administration of the four remaining emergency detention camps, and, in particular, the arrangements for their systematic inspection and the investigation of complaints by detainees.
I am glad to say that I have been able to secure the services for this purpose of Mr. D. Fairn, a Prison Commissioner and Director of Prisons Administration in this

country, who has taken part in the work of my Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders and has previously carried out inspections of colonial prisons, and of Sir George BeresfordStooke, a former Governor with wide colonial experience. I hope that they will be able to begin their inquiry next month.
I should add that the International Committee of the Red Cross has also come forward recently to offer the Kenya Government the help and advice of its delegates, who would visit the camps in the same way as they visited them in 1957. The Kenya Government have asked me to accept this offer on their behalf and I have done so.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the coroner found that the Cowan plan, under which the violence took place which led to these deaths, had the backing and approval of the Kenya Government? In view of this, is it not essential that a totally independent inquiry should be made, not merely one by a number of expert advisers attached to the Kenya Government, which is directly involved in the accusations made in this case? Secondly, would not the Minister agree, since the coroner has found that these men died as a result of violence, that it would be intolerable if no charges were to be preferred, so that justice can take its stern course in Kenya just as it is doing in this country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very anxious indeed that justice should be done, but it would be most unwise of me to prejudice any decisions which the Attorney-General may reach. As soon as I receive the full report of the proceedings, of which so far I have received only a summary, I will place it in the Library of the House and I will gladly answer any questions about it then; but I ask the House to wait until that full report has cone, when I shall be quite ready to be closely examined on it.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my first point?

Mr. K. Robinson: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say that at least the camp commandant, who was found by the coroner to have lied to the court, will be suspended from duty at any rate until this further inquiry takes place? Does he not agree that this shocking incident, about which The Times said there was


no redeeming feature, would probably never have taken place, and the 11 Africans might be alive today, if the Government had not rejected the demand of the Opposition for a judicial inquiry into conditions in all the camps?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is very true."] In reply to the first part, he mentioned an individual. I think that it would be very wrong of me to comment on the action of any individual mentioned in the report until the Attorney-General has made up his mind on any action he may decide to take.

Mr. Braine: Could my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the interesting offer made by the International Red Cross, which, I understand from his statement, he has accepted? Could he say what would be the terms of reference of any action taken by the Red Cross?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. They will be the same as on their previous visit in 1957, namely, to visit institutions in which persons are detained under the emergency regulations; to consider the possibility of providing material relief on behalf of the families of detained persons deprived of their bread-winner; and to consider and to arrange the possible distribution of comforts, books, etc.
This by itself is not adequate under these very distressing circumstances, valuable though it is, and that is why I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether Mr. Fairn would be ready to go to Kenya, in view of his considerable experience of prison management, and he, together with Sir George Beresford-Stooke, will go shortly. I share with the House the desire that, in circumstances which have caused the Governor and myself as much distress as anybody else in this House, nothing should be covered up.

Mr. Callaghan: Although we have to wait for the decision of the Attorney-General about the criminal charges, does the Colonial Secretary recall that when two policemen recently were accused of having cuffed a boy in a lane in Thurso, they were suspended from duty? Does he not think that some action should be taken against the prison commandant

and the senior prison officer, who have been held by the coroner to be fully aware of what was taking place in these incidents? Surely he will review that, and decide whether these gentlemen should not also be relieved of the responsibilities of office until the inquiry has been held.
May I ask one further question? While we all appreciate his considerable anxieties, does the right hon. Gentleman remember that it is only a few weeks ago since the whole of the Government Lobby voted against a Motion to set up an independent inquiry into the conditions of administration in these camps? That being so does he not think that he owes an apology not only to his own side, but also to some of my hon. Friends, who pressed this matter in the face of considerable contumely from hon. Gentle. men opposite?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I do not think that that is quite fair. In my opinion, there is no case for a judicial inquiry into something at Hola which has been the subject of judicial inquiry through the coroner's sittings and findings, and which may again be the subject of a judicial inquiry should the Attorney-General decide to take action that might involve prosecutions.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I understand the anxiety he may feel. It is only my desire to say nothing at this moment which might prejudice the position of an individual officer that makes it impossible for me to answer more fully.

Mr. Callaghan: The Colonial Secretary cannot get away with putting words into my mouth which I did not use and which were not in the Opposition Motion. No judicial inquiry was asked for. We asked for an inquiry into the administration of these camps. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to undertake. Does he not feel that he ought to be considering his own position, in view of the fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]—that these details have been brought out from this side of the House time after time, and that he has emphatically denied them in specific terms and has said that the administration was all right?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman is relying a little on the


lack of recollection of hon. Members of the House. I have never denied the seriousness of the charges brought at Hola. As soon as any charge emerged which warranted investigation, both I and the Governor of Kenya were at pains to see that the fullest investigation took place. It would be a wholly erroneous impression to convey that we have been frightened of following up any information which might lead to the detection of gross misconduct of the kind that happened at Hola.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. This will all come up again.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Colonial Secretary realise that in these circumstances, without prejudice to whatever the Attorney-General does, this commandant should be suspended from duty forthwith?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.

Mr. Gaitskell: Do we understand that the matter is under consideration, and not that the Colonial Secretary has made up his mind that the commandant should not be suspended?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: As the Colonial Secretary has refused to answer questions about an individual pending the decision of the Attorney-General, will he let the House know immediately the Attorney-General has arrived at the decision, whether the decision is to prosecute or not?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, I will do so with the same speed that I have answered these Questions today after the normal Question Time, because I am very anxious that the House should he kept fully informed.

Sir P. Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the incident at Hola, deplorable as it is, shows that under British colonial administration coroners do not shrink from making their reports even when those reports are somewhat critical of the colonial administration?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH MAY—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Post-War Credit (Income Tax) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 12TH MAY—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Consideration of the Resolution relating to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's salary; and of the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH MAY—We shall also take the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; and, afterwards, consider the Lords Amendments to the House Purchase and Housing Bill.
THURSDAY, 14TH MAY—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Estimates, 1959–60.
The hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams) will move an Amendment relating to Policy in Development Areas.
FRIDAY, 15TH MAY—It is proposed to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess until Tuesday, 2nd June.

Miss Herbison: No doubt the Leader of the House will have seen two very similar Motions on the Order Paper, signed by Members of the three parties in the House. Both Motions deal with the role of the Church of Scotland in Nyasaland. Since this is a matter of intense interest and concern not only to Scots in the United Kingdom, but to Scots in many parts of the world, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how soon we will be given time to discuss these Motions?

[That this House, recognising the special position and authority of the Church of Scotland among the African peoples of Nyasaland whom the Church in 1891 brought under the protection of


the British Crown, and whose welfare they have served during their long missionary connection, recognises the valuable part which the Church of Scotland can play in fostering the spirit of partnership between Europeans and Africans and in furthering the policy of moderation and orderly political progress in the interests of the people of Central Africa as a whole.]

[That this House, recognising the special position and authority of the Church of Scotland amongst the African people of Nyasaland whom the Church in 1891 brought under the protection of the British Crown, and whose welfare they have served during their long missionary connection, calls on Her Majesty's Government to make the fullest possible use of the good offices of the Church in restoring the spirit of partnership between European and African now interupted by the emergency and in bringing about a new effort at orderly political progress based on the consent of the inhabitants of the territory.]

Mr. Butler: I realise the importance of the Motions, which I have before me, and the intense feeling that there is behind the signatures appended to the Motions. They form part of the larger question of future policy in Central Africa. I cannot give a specific day for discussion but I can say that they are being taken into consideration in relation to the formulation of policy.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can my right hon. Friend say whether time will be found after Whitsuntide for consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Butler: This is a matter that interests all hon. Members. I will discuss it with my hon. Friends and any other hon. Members who wish to find time to discuss this matter.

Mr. Woodburn: With further reference to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), is the Leader of the House aware that there is a feeling that once the larger question is discussed this rather more localised question is likely to become lost in the greater considerations? Is he aware that there is considerable feeling throughout the whole of the Church of Scotland that the Government

have been receiving rather lopsided advice on certain aspects of the problem? Would it not be desirable for the Government to hear, through Members of the House on both sides, the knowledge and information available to the Church of Scotland?

Mr. Butler: It would be the duty of both my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to be fully apprised of the views of the Church of Scotland because of its very great missionary record in that part of the world. Any further steps that can be taken will be taken to inform my right hon. Friends of the position.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the Leader of the House say what he meant by his statement about a debate of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure when he said that he would discuss it with any other Member who wanted to find time? What does he mean?

Mr. Butler: There are some hon. Members, one of whom was the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has already expressed an opinion in an interjection, who think that there is not a lot in it. Other hon. Members feel that it is important in trying to find time for a discussion. One has to have not only the views of the Front Benches, which is the normal channel, but the views of ordinary Members. If anybody feels strongly that time should be found he would be wise to put himself in touch with me.

Mr. S. Silverman: On another subject, would the Leader of the House say when the House can discuss, in advance of any legislation that the Government propose, the textile industry in Lancashire? The President of the Board of Trade told us he hoped to publish a White Paper on Thursday, and, obviously, there could not be a debate before that. Could not we have an early opportunity of discussing this matter after Whitsun?

Mr. Butler: Dependent at the date of publication of the Bill, there would be a coincident opportunity for the matter to be discussed after we returned, on the introduction of the Bill. I will bear in mind what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible to


introduce emergency legislation to restore flogging as a punishment for men who attack little children, in view of the fact that a number of these attacks have taken place recently and there is strong feeling in the country that something should be done about it? Will he ask the Opposition if they would facilitate such legislation?

Mr. Butler: I cannot undertake, at this stage of the Session, to say that there will be time for the introduction of such legislation. From a visit to my hon. Friend's district I am aware of the anxiety that these cases arouse.

Mr. Mellish: Would the Leader of the House say, because many of us understood that it would be so, whether legislation will be published next week concerning the denominational schools? If it is not being published next week, when will it be published?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go too deeply into questions of policy in a discussion on the business of the House. But it is unlikely that we shall introduce legislation on this subject next week.

Mr. Short: The Leader of the House told me a fortnight ago that he was studying the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of 14 hon. Members and myself on the subject of the Cunarders.
[That this House, bearing in mind the skill and productive capacity of the shipyards of Tyneside and the steelworks of Durham, both of which are at present seriously under employed, expresses the

view that Government assistance towards the replacement of the Queen liners should be conditional upon the liner being built in the North-East.]
Will he say whether his study has led him to the view that if £30 to £40 million of public money is to be spent on this project the House should have an opportunity of discussing it? Particularly, should not the House have an opportunity of discussing whether, if this money is to be spent, all shipyards able to build ships should be able to tender for them?

Mr. Butler: Owing to the large amount of public money involved it would be valuable to have the views of all hon. Members representing a variety of shipyards, but I do not think that the matter is one that we can say will be immediately brought to a head.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £20 be granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1960, for the following services connected with Traffic Congestion in Large Cities, namely:

Civil Estimates, 1959–60



£


Class IX, Vote 1 Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation
10


Class IX, Vote 2 (Roads, etc., England and Wales)
10


Total
£20

Orders of the Day — TRAFFIC CONGESTION (LARGE CITIES)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As traffic congestion in our large cities is becoming one of our most serious social problems we felt it desirable to have an early discussion on the subject so that the House could hear from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has in mind, other than those he has already announced, to deal with the congestion in London and the many other provincial cities where conditions are as bad; and to allow hon. Members representing constituencies which are affected to contribute to the debate and to suggest remedies.
The problem is not so much the seriousness of the congestion in the centres of our big cities today, but what it is likely to be in ten years' time, when the number of vehicles on our roads will more than double, and delays are likely to quadruple. By that time, unless drastic action is taken meanwhile, it will be almost impossible for anyone who has not hours to spare to get into the centre of our cities for work, for shopping, or for social purposes; or to traverse them.
It is one of the strange paradoxes of modern society that as the community gets more prosperous and transport facilities increase, the more difficult does travel become. That is 'happening here and in many other countries. It is 'not merely the increase in the number of vehicles that has caused our trouble. Other outside factors must be taken into account.
In London, in recent years, there has been a material increase, said to be about 10 per cent. between 1948 and 1954, in the number of people working in the centre. That has resulted largely from the building of large blocks of offices which, in my view, should never have been allowed, While Central London office accommodation has increased in that way, the number of people living in the centre 'has decreased.
Many more people have moved to the outskirts, so that the total number of people needing to 'travel into London every day has risen substantially. We are glad that the London County Council, the planning authority, has decided virtually to stop office building in the central areas, or to be precise has said that it needs to revise its town planning provisions in the light of existing traffic conditions.
I will speak mainly of conditions in London, but we all know that the traffic situation in other cities is just as bad, and, in some cases, even worse. Whereas the average speed at which a vehicle can travel in London is about 11 miles an hour, it far lower elsewhere. I understand that in Glasgow it is less than 6 miles an 'hour. This is very serious, and again I ask: what is likely 'to happen in a few years' time, when the number of vehicles has doubled?
We agree at once that there is no simple remedy for this malady. It can be improved or, at least, prevented from getting worse, only by 'the application of a number of remedies of varying importance and expense. Our criticism of the Government is that they have not yet tackled the problem with the urgency it deserves. There has been far too little thinking and research, both of which must precede effective action. The Government's approach has been "bitty "doing a little here and there. There has been no general staff planning—indeed, there has been no general staff.
What we have had has been a number of enthusiastic committees unco-ordinated in their action and inadequately equipped with the necessary information. Above all else, this need for co-ordinated research into the traffic problems of our towns cries out to be satisfied. It is only when we have the information coming from research that effective remedies can be applied.
As many hon. Members may know, a most interesting series of articles on traffic congestion has been written by a distinguished American traffic expert and published in the Daily Telegraph but, in spite of that, I commend them to all hon. Members. The expert is Mr. Burton Marsh, and so important are his comments that I should like to read a sentence or two from what he has written, as he speaks with great authority. He opened his series of articles with these comments:
…much British official opinion does not give to road transport anything like the importance we give to it in the United States. You have one third more vehicles per mile of road than we have, yet are spending relatively far less money and training for fewer people to think and research about traffic problems…
There seems to be lacking in London the kind of adequately staffed traffic engineering department which has proved essential in our large cities to study the complicated problems of traffic and urban development. Indeed, without the many studies—the continual fact-finding and appraisal—which we do, we would not feel we had an adequate understanding of our traffic problems and needs.
Without such understanding isn't there serious danger of wrong policies, unwise decisions, improper actions?
He might well have added, "and unnecessary delays."
I am sure that Mr. Marsh's conclusions would be reflected by all the other traffic engineers in the United States. More than anything else we need an expert body to co-ordinate opinion and to find out facts. The activities of such an expert body are essential if we are to tackle this problem properly, and I hope that the Minister will give this aspect very serious consideration.
It is generally admitted that the set-up in London is deplorable. There are many traffic committees, but no central authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad there seems to be agreement on both sides of the House about that. The remedy for this state of affairs is not easy

to find, but the present situation is ridiculous and intolerable. We have the London County Council as the highway authority and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has a financial responsibility. The police authorities, who are great experts in these matters, have, properly, to be consulted there is the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, another important body, and the London Roads Committee—I think that is the name of the body presided over by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
There is also the London Traffic Committee, which is presided over by Mr. Alec Samuels. All these bodies act more or less independently, or else their work overlaps. None of them is a central authority able to make use of a body of traffic experts or engineers, or whatever we like to call them, such as do such effective work in the United States. I hope that some remedy will be found for this problem.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will carry his argument a stage further. What authority would he suggest should become the central authority? Should it be the Minister or any one of the number of authorities which he has mentioned? This seems to me an important point.

Mr. Strauss: I have admitted that the problem is not easy to solve. I am not at the moment prepared to say where the final responsibility should lie. Probably it should lie with the Minister. His capacity to combine the other interests concerned is greater than that of any of the other bodies involved.
In a debate such as this one can only comment on the various proposals to remedy this serious social evil which have been advanced from time to time. One remedy which has been suggested in some quarters—I do not think that it commands much approval—is that private cars should be banned altogether from the central areas. That solution is not acceptable to me, it is far too simple, and as a large section of the public are now motorists I believe that it would cause as much inconvenience as it would bring benefit. I do not think that it is a solution which we should contemplate at the moment or even, it may be, at all.
That does not mean that it is not desirable to do everything possible to


discourage private motorists from coming into the centre of London if they can avoid doing so, by using alternative methods of public transport. The unnecessary journey should be discouraged; and many of the journeys made by private motorists into the city centres are unnecessary. I would not object to a proposal to have certain small sections of the city centre completely free of vehicles, and formed into shopping zones, as has been done in other cities such as Birmingham. But that is a different matter from imposing a complete ban on motorists entering the central zone of a city.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that though it may be difficult to ban the entry of cars it would be possible to ban parking in the central area?

Mr. Strauss: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am coming to that point.
Another proposal which has been put forward, one which every Minister of Transport has approached with great enthusiasm and later abandoned in disappointment is the staggering of hours of work. The Labour Government tried that in 1946 and 1947. I went round London addressing various conferences and begging industrialists, shopkeepers and other employers of labour to stagger the hours of their workers, and the present Government have done the same. One gets a polite response, but very little action.
Although we should try to get as much staggering of working hours as possible and continue with propaganda efforts to that end, we must recognise that, for obvious reasons, the results will not be substantial. People do not want to go to work very early in the morning before the rest of the members of their family are up, or before they have been able to enjoy a communal breakfast. They do not want to arrive home long before other members of the family or before the children have come home from school. We must appreciate that there is a limit to what can be done in that direction.
There is the very important problem of parking. I do not think that anyone questions that improper parking causes serious congestion in the centre of London. There is no doubt that the parking meter scheme in Westminster, small as it is, has been a great success,

and, if it is repeated elsewhere, is likely to be equally effective. I remember the strong opposition by the Automobile Association and the R.A.C. to the suggestion that the scheme should be introduced. They said that it was wrong in principle and would not work, despite the fact that similar schemes had been proved successful practically all over the world. The Westminster scheme has proved a success. Traffic flows more easily through that area and road accidents have been fewer in number. The question now is: how quickly we can bring parking meter schemes to other areas, or else introduce the alternative blue disc schemes?
I am distressed at the length of time it takes to get a parking meter scheme into operation. There will be a period of about two years between the time when a scheme was initiated for the Marylebone area and its coming into operation. Is it really necessary that such a long period should elapse? Shall we have to wait five or six years before there are effective schemes covering central London? The same problem arises in the provinces. I hope that steps will he taken to expedite these schemes. I shall be interested to hear whether it is still possible for some provincial cities to have disc schemes similar to that operated in Paris, and about which we have had debates in the House. They appear to be an attractive alternative to parking meters and it would be interesting to have an experiment along those lines in some part of the country.
Parking in streets where there is no meter scheme presents a serious problem. We all agree that parking in such streets in the centre of London causes much congestion and that the present oversight of such parking by the police is ineffective. Here, more than in other directions, useful measures could be taken to prevent traffic congestion. Strong action is called for. All over the place one finds, in streets where there should be no parking, or parking only on one side of the road, that the regulations arc ignored every day.
If the answer is that there are not sufficient police to deal with this matter. one asks: what do the Government propose to do about it? Are they satisfied with the present situation, or is it proposed to ask the Home Secretary to


appoint mare police, or to employ traffic wardens, or something of that kind? Are the Government prepared to allow this serious parking situation to continue in and around the centre of London?
The permitting of loading and unloading of goods in front of shops during periods when parking is not allowed is another matter which must be dealt with. I hope that the Government will take a stronger line about this than in the past. In many countries loading and unloading of goods in front of shops is prohibited during periods when the streets are full of traffic. That might prove an inconvenience to many shopkeepers, but if it assists the flow of traffic, as I believe it would, I hope that the Government will be firm and impose such a ban. The Minister would have the support of most Londoners in any such action.
I suggest to the Minister that double parking should immediately be made an offence. It is a monstrous thing. Not only does it block up the road, but the car parked on the inside which may have been left only for a short time, is imprisoned by other vehicles and the driver cannot move it. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he proposes to do this.
Then there is the question of the provision of garages for cars. Of course, this is highly desirable, but this is a matter designed not so much for clearing the streets and preventing congestion as providing something highly convenient for motorists. Garages by themselves only attract traffic into the centre of towns and they may attract traffic in streets which are already overcrowded. Any application for the building of a garage in streets which are already congested should be looked at very carefully, and turned down if there is any likelihood that the flow of cars in and out of the garage will cause further serious congestion in the surrounding streets and in what may be an important shopping or business area.
The siting of garages is of importance. I am all in favour of putting garages a little away from the congested streets, as a convenience to motorists, while recognising the fact that they will attract more cars to the area than would otherwise be there. I am, however, doubtful about the value of putting up big garages and parking places right in the centre of

congested areas where the streets am already too full.
I see no reason why these garages should be paid for out of public funds. It has been suggested that the building of garages should be subsidised from national funds, or from the rates of local authorities. I cannot see any reason for that. The motorist who wants to bring his car into London, and have the convenience of parking it near the centre, should pay the proper economic rent for that facility.
A way of relieving congestion in or near the centre of our towns which has caused more discussion than anything else is the provision of ordinary new roads, the widening of existing ones, or the building of urban motorways. Plainly, it is not possible to give a general answer and say that this is or is not a desirable solution. In some cities the building of a new road may be the only possible thing to do, but we must recognise that it is expensive and if we say that that is the solution, we must be prepared to see a large amount of money spent in the building of these new roads.
In London, there has been only one really new road for a long time, and that is the Cromwell Road. Speaking of that road reminds me how long it takes to get a new road built. It was when I was chairman of the London County Council Highways Committee, about twenty-five years ago, that the Council promoted a Bill, which was passed in Parliament, for the building of the Cromwell Road extension. It was not a new idea then, it had been seriously considered by experts for many years before. It has lust been completed.
There may be other places where substantial road widening is desirable, such as the Strand. I fully share the doubt whether an inner A-ring road within a radius of one-and-a-half miles of Charing Cross would really be worth while. Not only would the expense be enormous—we are told about £150 million—but I think that such a road would create traffic problems as well as relieve them. I am certain that it would not be possible to build such a road without destroying almost completely the architectural character and general amenities of the area through which it passed. We have to think very carefully before embarking on a scheme of that kind.
On the other hand, there are proposals which appear to me to be far more attractive. I have in mind in particular, the building of a new tube from Victoria to Walthamstow. This is something which has been strongly advocated on traffic grounds by almost every authority for a long time. Again, it will be very expensive. We are told that it will cost about £50 million. But I believe that this would be far cheaper and far better in relieving traffic congestion than a ring road.
We know that the annual cost of such a tube will be heavy and might amount to about £3 million a year. There seems to be justification if the Government are spending substantial sums of money, as they must do, to help relieve road congestion for subsidising a development of this sort which is an alternative way of doing the same thing. This matter is now being considered by the committee over which I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary presides, or by one of the other committees, possibly the London Traffic Committee. I am, however, doubtful whether the views of that committee will be considered as final or decisive by the Government. Its report will be the opinion of a group of people whose views will be interesting and nothing more.
I hope that a decision about this matter will not be long delayed and that a favourable decision will be taken, because, although I cannot speak with all the expert knowledge which one should have before deciding anything of this sort, it appears, from all the evidence published and the facts that have been before us, that such a development in London would be of the highest importance and do much towards relieving traffic congestion.
As for the proposals of motorways, it is quite impossible to generalise. I think that in many of the provincial cities such developments would be highly desirable and should be proceeded with. If that is so, the local authorities should receive every encouragement from the Government and the Minister should urge them to push ahead and put before him the plans which they think desirable—not with the understanding that the Minister will accept whatever plans are put before him, but as an indication that he is anxious to do what he can and contribute

substantial sums of money for that purpose.
There is only one other thing which I want to say on this subject before I sit down and leave it to other hon. Members to make their contributions, and it concerns road safety. About 75 per cent. of the casualties on our roads are in the built-up areas. Although it may be said that the slower the traffic, the fewer the accidents—believe that is true—nevertheless the accident aspect of traffic flowing through our cities is exceedingly important. I want to make a brief comment on it. It concerns the propaganda now being carried on by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, with the help of substantial sums of money from the Treasury.
In my opinion, much of the propaganda displayed on its wayside posters is an absolute waste of money. I cannot think what good anyone thinks it does to have posters saying, "Good driving pays". Everyone believes that he is a good driver, and anodyne and platitudinous statements of that sort are not likely to make anyone drive more carefully.
I have my own view as to the type of propaganda necessary to have any effect on the public and I think that to some extent it must bring the public up with a jerk and shock them about the danger of accidents. [An HON. MEMBER: "The black widow."] That is an example. Posters of the present sort, displayed all over the place outside towns and in the country, are an utter waste of money and, indeed, ridiculous. I wonder what inquiries are made and by whom before it is decided to use slogans of that sort.
There must be many people in the advertising world who would be able to give sound advice as to the kind of poster likely to have effect. Have they been consulted and, if so, who else has been consulted? I imagine that no one has been consulted, or if they have been consulted their advice has not been taken. I hope that we shall have some comment from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary about the wisdom of spending large sums of public money in carrying out a campaign which is, I think, in the view of everyone in this Committee, incapable of bringing about any results whatsoever.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not denigrating the idea of better driving, the safety factor and the need to prevent accidents on the roads. Is not anything which brings those before the public good in itself?

Mr. Strauss: Of course better driving is desirable, but to put up posters saying, "Be a better driver", and "Better driving pays" is just as sensible as putting up a poster saying, "Look more handsome". Is it likely that such a poster will make anybody drive better than he did before? The answer, unquestionably, is "No".
Those are the only points I want to raise. The traffic problem cannot be solved by one simple answer. There are approaches to the solution from many directions, and it is only by combination of a number of them that we shall get results. I repeat my belief that unless action is taken on a much more drastic scale in all these ways than has been done, the situation in the country in a few years' time will be so serious as almost to kill the centres of our main cities. They cannot live unless there is a proper flow of traffic through them. It would cause inconvenience to the public beyond anything we know today.
There are many ways by which it can be tackled, but so far the Government have not given a high enough priority to the solution of this problem, the gravity of which is far more severe than they appreciate; or if the Government do appreciate how severe it is they must have been inhibited from taking the necessary action for some reason or another. Perhaps they have not had sufficient public opinion behind them, or Parliament has not been insistent enough, to enable them to do what is needed and which would, admittedly, involve the expenditure of substantial sums of money.
This is a vicious circle. The slower traffic is in the centre of our cities the higher the cost of transport. Up go the bus fares for the people who want to travel by bus, and if bus fares go up fewer people want to travel in buses. They get out their private cars, and the worse the situation becomes. London Transport should take careful thought before they withdraw buses from routes which are uneconomic. Although, from its point of view, and looking at the

matter from the financial aspect, it may be desirable for it to withdraw such buses on certain routes, it may well happen that if there is not an alternative underground method by which people living in the area can travel a large number of them will bring out private cars, although they previously preferred to travel by bus. As we know, the space occupied by private cars is much larger than that occupied by buses. Congestion, therefore, gets worse.
The Government, having in view the general state of congestion, and not the economic and financial viewpoints of London Transport, should urge the London Transport Executive not to withdraw buses except where it is clear that that will not create much public disturbance, and that the withdrawal will not result in a large number of private cars going on to the roads and congestion becoming worse. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these problems and their solution. The longer that action is delayed the more intractable will the problems become and the more intolerable will be their effect on the community.

4.25 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has asked me, and very rightly, to give the Government's policy, looking towards the future, on the very great and acknowledged problem of traffic congestion in our cities. I shall be very happy to do so as quickly as I can.
First I would say one general thing. It is worth considering that if we did not have a problem of acute traffic congestion in our cities we would probably be a great deal more worried than we are today, because traffic congestion is at least a sign of an expanding and lively economy. It is the same in every advancing country in the world. The sign of material development is a traffic problem. Do not let us regard it, therefore, in too tragic a manner. It is a by-product of an advanced, technological way of life. We have to find a proper solution, and not throw up our hands in horror and say how terrible it all is.
It is no use having the best of all possible plans unless we have some performance. This is not a strictly party matter. I remember with great pleasure


the collective wisdom of the House of Commons when we discussed the Road Traffic Bill, and it is the collective wisdom of this Committee that I want to take on this matter now. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, that we have been very slow to tackle this problem. For example, Mr. Barnes gave his Government very good advice, but they failed to take it. The present Government are at least taking some of the advice that I have tried to give them and I can talk to the Committee about performance as well as about planning.
Performance falls under four heads, with which I shall try to deal quickly. The first is that we must have more roads. The second is we must have better use of existing roads. The third is that we must have better deployment of public transport, and the fourth is we must have better control and co-ordination.
First, about more urban roads. We do not want to get misled into thinking that there is any particular simple solution. For example, there is a mystique about urban motor roads, but although they are very interesting we do not want to got dazzled by them. We must have our own solution about this. We cannot just pick up a road from America or Germany. plant it down over here and say, "That's right". It is not. We are experimenting with roads, not of the complete motor-road standard but with roads of limited access. A good example is the Cromwell Road extension. It may have taken a long time to come, but it is now practically complete, and should be finished, except for the Hammersmith flyover, in August.
It cannot be classified as a motor road because it is not of motor-road standard. It is a limited access road and will be an immense boon to London. The Birmingham Inner Ring Road is not quite a motor road in the terms understood by the expert, but a limited access road. I am inclined to think that that kind of road fits our city traffic problems better than the motor road. I am not saying that we do not need the motor road solution, but do not let us say that if we cannot build an enormous number of urban motor roads we cannot do anything at all. We shall not get anywhere in that way.
Take the London problem. For his sins, the Minister of Transport is the

London traffic authority. I never quite know why. In general, in London, we want not so much ring roads but radial roads to handle the enormous surge in the inflow and outflow of traffic every day. We are making some steps in this direction. As I have said, the Cromwell Road extension, with the Chiswick flyover, will, I hope, be opened in August. Beyond that, we plan a motor road. First, it will be a double-decker road to link the Chiswick flyover to the South Wales radial road, which will be a full-scale motor road.
I return to my theme of giving a face lift to some of our existing roads. By that means we can draw a traffic dividend very quickly. An example of a small face lift is the Hanger Lane flyover, which will be finished in 1960 at a cost of El million and will give much better value to the road network in that area.
I hope to announce in a few days' time some plans for a fairly major face lift for some of the Kingston By-pass. That is an exit from London which I think that we ought to be modernising and thus making more valuable.
The Committee will appreciate that I am giving examples. I hope that the L.C.C. will soon be able to reach a decision about the Kingsway tunnel. It has always been astonishing to me that we have the possibility of an underpass from Waterloo Bridge to Kingsway of which we are not making any use. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee may be yet another committee, but it is thanks to it that this problem has been picked up again. I hope that before long the L.C.C. will be able to agree that we can use that tunnel as a flyunder from the end of Waterloo Bridge to Kingsway.
Are we looking ahead? I will give the Committee some idea of the sort of plans on which the planning section of my Ministry is now working. I will give but three examples in London, although I could give many more. First, the London to Birmingham motor road needs a link both into the centre of Birmingham and into the centre of London. The link into the centre of Birmingham is going ahead and will marry in with the extra work on the Inner Ring Road.
We are also examining the possibility of a motor road from Marble Arch to


Aldenham, which is the end of the present London to Birmingham motor road. It is a cheap motor road by present-day standards. By "cheap" I mean that it will cost only £30 million. That seems an immense sum of money, but it will save 6 million vehicle hours per year. There will then be a link from Marble Arch right through to the centre of Birmingham.
There are always immense difficulties to be overcome on planning and the displacement of people. To give another example to the Committee, one small section of the Cromwell Road extension was held up for a long time on one ground only, namely, the difficulty of finding alternative housing accommodation for people who would be displaced on the Talgarth Road section. Unless we are willing to throw away an immense number of safeguards for the rights of people and property in this island, we shall find it fairly difficult to do these things, but they will not take as long as the right hon. Gentleman indicated that Cromwell Road took.
Another plan is the new outlet to the east which would comprise our present plans for a dock relief road with the Norwich Radial. There are plans for a link to the south-east to link the Medway motor road into London. I could give many more examples.
One has to face a cost of up to £4 million a mile for an urban motorway. It is a good investment, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, if we are to carry out a very large number of these urban motor road schemes, the House of Commons and the country will certainly have to provide my Ministry with more money for its road schemes. Otherwise, they will not be possible.
I hope that I have shown that we are thinking well ahead on planning. Although I am using London as an example, every large provincial city is doing the same sort of thing.
It is also necessary to go ahead with some current works. I will give the Committee one or two examples in London. The Dartford—Purfleet tunnel will be finished in 1962 at a cost of £11 million. That will be a new link across the Thames. The new scheme at the Elephant and Castle, costing £1½ million, which will be completed in 1962, will help to cure that South London bottle-

neck. The Notting Hill Gate scheme and the reconstruction of the tube station and major road widening will be completed in 1960. The Blackwall Tunnel duplication, which I regard as most important, will cost £8 million and should be finished by 1964. The northern approaches are going on now at a cost of £1½ million. I hope that Route 11 will be opened in the next few weeks in the City of London. This is a most interesting scheme, because it combines with the road a parking space for 250 motor cars. I certainly congratulate the City of London on that type of scheme. I shall return to the parking issue in a moment.
Then there is the widening of Cheap-side, the widening of the Strand, the reconstruction of St. Giles Circus, and the Holborn Kingsway new scheme at a cost of £1¼ million. These are all relatively small schemes, but they will all pay an enormous traffic dividend. Then there is the new Park Lane scheme, on which work has now started. Its four-lane underpass was included in the scheme with some doubts in the House of Commons and elsewhere, but I am sure that it is right. Even though it perhaps slightly over-insures against present traffic I am sure that it will be necessary for future traffic. So at least we are proceeding with some current works. There are plenty of schemes elsewhere. Birmingham has several interesting examples of urban motor roads—over the railways, under the railways, and so on. The whole Birmingham Inner Ring Road scheme is very interesting.
To give one other example, there is a very interesting scheme at Newport of a complete motor road treatment for a medium-sized town. I know that it presents Newport with great difficulties in rehousing, and so on, but I hope that Newport will go ahead with this very imaginative scheme designed by Sir Owen Williams. This scheme shows what can be done to give a medium-sized town full motor road treatment.
I hope that I have said at least enough to show that on the constructional front we are trying to do a great deal of work now in planning for the future, when there will be obviously even more traffic problems.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Will my right hon. Friend say


if he has any plans for utilising space over railways? The sort of thing which I have in mind is the extension of Western Avenue right up through the north side of Bayswater Road to Marble Arch. There is a market for that type of scheme. Has my right hon. Friend any plans for any scheme like that?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with that. I have mentioned the scheme in Birmingham where we hope to build some 2½ miles of road over the railway as the best way of getting through a congested area. When one considers an inner ring road for London, I think that the A Ring Road is certainly right if one is to build a completely new road, although its cost is enormous, not only in money, but in the displacement of people.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I think that we must see whether we can do more of this road-over-rail treatment in our cities. It is expensive, but it has the great attraction and advantage that it does not mean the displacement of thousands of people, the severance of one district from another, and all the difficulties of planning which arise when one has to drive a road through a densely built up area.
My Ministry is examining all these possibilities. There are many difficulties, but we had better let them argue for themselves. We must try to go ahead and make more use of this double-decker principle.
I want now to come to the second problem, how to make better use of existing roads. I, too, have read the very interesting articles in the Daily Telegraph. It is a good thing from time to time for somebody from outsde to look at our problems, and I think that the Daily Telegraph was very enterprising to bring Mr. Burton Marsh over. He represents a little known kind of traffic expert to us—the traffic engineer, trained as an engineer or as an architect, but brought up to deal with traffic problems.
His visit is timely, because of a very interesting development which I think has not received as much notice as it deserves. Thanks to the very generous help of a large number of firms and associations, we hope that there will now be a Chair of Traffic Engineering at Birmingham University, if Birmingham accepts the

offer, which will start the training in this country of these essential people. They will be essential in order to solve our traffic problems in the future. Twenty thousand pounds a year have now been offered for this Chair. I should like to express the thanks of the whole House of Commons to those who have supported this imaginative concept. I should like to express my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, because of what he did in all this. He organised it and it was his idea. I am grateful to him. It is a very good job to have done and it will pay a very good dividend in the future.
We also propose to start sending some people from my Ministry and other organisations to Yale and other traffic engineering schools in the United States so that while we are training our own people we can also be learning in America. It can, therefore, be said that we are taking traffic engineering seriously.
I agree that at the moment we have many committees but, as I shall mention before I end, this is because of the absurd fragmentation of responsibility which at present exists. The London Travel Committee has set up a Traffic Sub-Committee which is already doing this job of traffic engineering. It has formed what it calls an attack group," which is staffed by trained engineers from my Ministry. It has the full co-operation of the police, the local authorities and all others concerned. It is trying to study some new ideas on buses, to which I shall return presently, as well as the problem of improving intersections and all the other detailed changes which may make an improvement to traffic if we can carry them out. We have, therefore, not only the chair of engineering, and training in America, for the future but, in addition. something being done now in London—which I hope will be followed in other cities—by this Committee which is trying to get on with the job of traffic engineering.
Of course, that will not be enough, and I want to make plain what is the Government's policy on the question of trying to control parking in London. I agree that the parking meter has more than proved itself in the small pilot scheme which we have tried. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it has reduced accidents and it has increased the traffic


speed by no less than 9 per cent. in the area, but, of course, we must start these innovations fairly slowly if we want to carry the public with us. I think we can say quite clearly that this is the right policy, and I therefore hope that we can speed up further schemes which are brought forward. The hearings of the new Westminster scheme will, I hope, start in June. They will be held by the Chairman of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, who has promised me that he will conduct the hearings as expeditiously as possible.
Hon. Members will be interested to know that I have signed an Order extending the provisions of the Act on parking meters to ten local authorities outside London. The Order will be laid before the House on Monday, 11th May. It requires an affirmative Resolution of both Houses, and I hope that it will be given this Resolution so that provincial cities which wish to go ahead with parking meters will be able to do so.
I should like to make a few comments about off-street parking, because there is some misunderstanding on this point. I must make it plain that, as was right, the Government have looked at the whole situation again in the light of the decision to extend parking meters. After the most careful thought, I am satisfied that no case has been made for a Government subsidy for off-street parking. I think that it would be a wrong use of my road funds, which are stretched enough already, and that it would lead us in the long run to some very odd conclusions.
I think that the proof is to be found in a piece of great private enterprise. As a major contribution to the solution of London's parking problem, Messrs. Selfridges have erected a garage recently just off Oxford Street which will hold nearly 1,000 motor cars. They are charging, I understand, quite a cheap price for all-day parking. I also understand that that garage has not yet been more than half full. In other words, it has never held more than about 500 motor cars on any one day. Why is this? It is because people can park for nothing outside Selfridges if they are prepared to run the risk of an occasional fine.
Frankly, I do not see that anybody will go ahead and provide a lot more off-street

parking unless we show some resolution in pressing on with metering the streets. I hope that I have said enough to show that we will press on with metering the streets. That will bring in its train the growth of off-street parking, produced either by civic enterprise or by private enterprise but not subsidised by the Government. Certainly in the City of London they seem to find no difficulty in facing the parking problem. I have mentioned Route 11 and I could mention other imaginative parking schemes in the City. I am sure that what can be done in the City can also be done elsewhere.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential for him at this stage to see that the remaining war-damaged sites are not developed for office blocks? They could become the off-street garages for future. If he loses that opportunity he will never get it again.

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend is quite right. I do not want to make a very long speech, but if he is interested I will let him know about a number of sites which the Westminster City Council and my Ministry have picked out, so to speak, so that if a developer comes forward the sites will be available. For instance, I think that the Minister of Works would consider quite a large site in Hyde Park if some suitable developer came forward. We could have a garage there, which would be underground and not seen, to hold over 1,000 motor cars. We have that point well in mind.
There has been one development in policy which I should like to mention. We have been forced to the view that it is absurd to spend large sums of money on building new roads and immediately lose one-third or even half of their capacity because they are turned into car parks. Hon. Members have only to look at the Thames Embankment to see what I mean. I make it plain that in future my Ministry will ask any local authority which brings an urban scheme forward, "What plans do you associate with this scheme, for off-street parking? Can you arrange it under the road or in association with the building of the road or in some other manner?" I make it plain that, in future, schemes which have a car-parking element will undoubtedly receive priority over schemes which have not. I know the difficulties, but I think


that it is right that in future we should ensure that study of such a provision has been made for keeping the cars off the street before large sums of public money are spent.
A new development which I hope will be supported in the House of Commons and elsewhere is what I will call clearways. It comes back to my theme of medium-purpose roads. We must have certain trunk roads, both within and without cities, where there is no parking at all. In other words, if someone wants to stop he must get off the road, on the verge or round the corner or somewhere else. We hope to start the first experiment in clearways this summer. We shall probably choose country trunk roads to start the experiment, but we hope to carry out experiments both within cities and out of cities in the hope that in due course the House will agree to some legislation, which may be necessary, establishing this clearway principle on certain important through-routes.
May I say a word about discs? I am not opposed to discs, but I recently had a quick look at the scheme in Paris and I was interested to learn that on 31st March this year 360 enforcement officers had to be employed in Paris to staff the scheme, which is three times as many as would be necessary on a metering scheme. I am bound to say that to my untutored mind the possibilities of evasion seemed to be extremely large. The scheme brings in no revenue and it does not mark out the streets or give room for goods vehicles. Nevertheless, in some provincial cities and outer London areas it may well have a part to play. For example, if Kingston-upon-Thames or some other provincial town made the suggestion that it would like to try the disc scheme, my Ministry would be willing to facilitate it.
I want to turn quickly to the question of the better use of public transport. We delude ourselves if we think that our cities will live if their transport is catered for only by the private motor car and if public transport is thrown on the scrap heap. The proof of that is to be found in the sobering thought that every day British Railways provides for 3.5 million passenger-journeys and buses provide every day for 50 million passenger-journeys. No one should think that the private motor car can possibly be capable

of that sort of thing, because it is quite impossible.
What I think we want to do is to try to fit the pattern of our public transport into a slightly new concept in our cities, and I hope that that is one of the things which the London Travel Committee will do. I think there are possibilities in having more "shuttle" bus services in the congested areas, in having buses waiting at certain points where they can be drawn into the stream in order to pick up the queues quickly. All these things are being studied, and I think things like that could give new life to public transport and better services to the public.
On the railways, there must be more electrification. Stage one of the North Kent coast line will start in June, London-Southend will be completed in 1961, and the Metropolitan Line schemes in 1962. London Transport is spending £15 million on new rolling stock for the tubes, and there again modernisation should bring a much better service, and, I hope, enable public transport to carry a greater share of the load.
The Victoria line is not by any means disposed of or buried by being put to the the London Travel Committee. This issue has been before the House of Commons for many years. I think it should be looked at again in the light of the future plans we are trying to make. I hope that the report on it will reach me in June, and I certainly undertake now to give it very serious and early study as soon as I have received it. One cannot dismiss a scheme like this, because of its immense carrying capacity, although I must say that it will almost certainly lose money. However, that is something we may have to face. In any case, I must first be advised whether we could spend £55 million in some better way in order to get a better traffic dividend, and I have asked the London Travel Committee to advise me on that.
Next, I want to say a word or two about this vexed problem of control. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is indeed responsibility without any power, so far as the London traffic authorities are concerned. I and my Ministry are supposed to be that authority, but we have no power, and we have to work through the police, the L.C.C. or the boroughs. I do not say that the system does not work reasonably well.


It does, thanks to the kindness and cooperation of the people on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which, although in theory it should not work at all, in fact works remarkably well.
My Ministry has recommended to the Royal Commission that there should be a radical change in the traffic structure for London. We think that there should be a central traffic authority with real power for the Greater London area, but that means treading on the toes of the L.C.C. and a lot of other interests. All I can say is that we have put our case in writing and we will put it again verbally and very powerfully to the Royal Commission. Although I do not think it is right for me to say to the Royal Commission what we think it should do, I say that this is a very important aspect of its work, because I think that if we continue as we are, we invite the very fair criticism of outside people who come to look at our cities, like Mr. Marsh, for example, that they wonder how we make it work at all.
I should like to say something about other cities. I should like to see more of the conurbation committees set up. Those that have been set up are working extremely well. They do not plan routes in detail, but try to foresee the general future so as to advise us on what are likely to be the future developments in Birmingham, Manchester and other places. I think that the architectural profession is quite wrong in feeling that in some way or another it is being left out of it. It is not. I have written to the chairmen of the existing conurbation committees hoping that they will pay the greatest possible attention to expert advice from architects or from anybody else who can help in their very difficult task.
Better control and co-ordination must await the Report of the Royal Commission. In the meantime, we may have a lot of committees, but they are all trying to work to a common end. I am very grateful for their help. In London we must get on as best we can in the hope that the Royal Commission, in its wisdom, will provide us with a simpler and more powerful authority. In other cities, I hope the conurbation studies will go on so that my Ministry may be clearly

warned concerning the plans which they want to make. The London Roads Committee will I hope soon report and give us some guidance for London itself.
To sum up, I would say that at least we are trying to tackle the job. Anybody in my job, if he is honest, must admit that there is an immense amount more to do if we are to solve the traffic problem, but at least we have made a start. We are beginning to learn some of the lessons and trying to see how to solve this problem, not in America or Germany, but in our own country and in our own way. I am rather alarmed that there are some people who seem to regard the motor car and the development of transport as a sort of adverse development. I do not think it is.
If we are to have this technological advance and an expanding economy, we must provide the fruits for every member of the population, and things like motor cars, aeroplanes and new trains are perhaps some of the more obvious end-products of any technological civilisation. It is our job as a Government to try to see that they are freely available and exploited to their full capacity. This is really very much the job of a Minister of Transport—to try to see how this country can live alongside the aeroplane, the motor car, the new diesel engines and all the rest.
I would end by saying that I think we have made a good start, but that if we are to solve the problem, the country must face the fact that in future we shall have to invest a great deal more money in transport than we are doing today. In these middle years of our century, I myself cannot think of any better investment of public money than one which can bring life and vigour and expansion to our country by a modern system, not only of roads, but of railways and airways, if we are to be a prosperous and efficient country.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate. We have listened to two very thoughtful and interesting speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. Both have given great thought to this question, and I am quite


certain that both their speeches were of vital interest to the House.
This is not a party matter, but a national question. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are interested in obtaining proper roads for Britain, and, therefore, I am quite sure that the debate will be conducted in that spirit today. I have only a lay knowledge of new road and traffic problems, but I am pleased to have the opportunity of making some observations to the Committee from that point of view. The towns and cities of Britain as we know them today were largely built before motor transport existed. They have developed over the centuries, but were first constructed mainly for horse-drawn traffic. It is in this, the twentieth, century that this problem has become so acute.
In the post-war years, there has been a tremendous increase in transport and in all types of vehicles—industrial lorries, private cars, coaches, public transport and other types of cars used on the roads, and this development is likely to increase in the years ahead. Therefore, it is vital that Parliament should pay immediate attention to the problem.
I feel that there are three aspects of the traffic problem which need to be considered. First, there is the construction of new roads, with road safety measures for all users of the roads. The question of making the roads safe is vital not only for the pedestrian, but also for the motor driver himself. I think that my right hon. Friend criticised the slogan to be displayed on placards on the roads, "Be a Good Driver". I would suggest to him that it should be "Be a Safe Driver". I think that that would be a very good slogan indeed. Secondly, there is the application of traffic engineering techniques to ensure that the maximum use is made of the existing pattern of roads and streets; and, thirdly, there is the provision of parking facilities off the highway.
The construction of new roads in the central areas of large cities is urgent, especially in large shopping areas. We need to construct these roads with pedestrian subways so that the persons can cross the streets in safety. To lessen congestion in the busy shopping and trading areas and during peak hours relief roads should be provided. Not only do

we want the new roads in the centres of the cities with pedestrian subways. but also relief roads which would help to lighten the traffic in the busy periods.
Outstanding examples of planned schemes to deal with the traffic problem are now being carried out in Birmingham and Coventry. The new shopping centre in Coventry shows the results which can be achieved by a modern approach to the problem. Coventry's pedestrian shopping centre with provision outside for the parking of motor cars is well worth seeing, and I think that it would be well worth the while of other local authorities to take a look at the work now going on in those two cities. Both these cities are providing parking schemes.
In the construction of new roads or of any new construction in the big cities I think that parking space for cars must be provided near the shopping centres. London is probably the greatest problem that the road experts will have to tackle. More road construction schemes are urgently needed not only in London, but also in the greater London urban areas. True, we have the Hyde Park scheme, with four lines of traffic in the underpass, the Chiswick flyover and the Hammersmith flyover, and in my own constituency we have the widening of the Bath Road and other improvements. There are also the three pedestrian subways which the Minister is going to give to the people of Cranford. But despite all that has been and is being done there is more that needs to be done in the Greater London and Middlesex areas.
In Feltham, we need a new shopping area as well as the long-needed new high street. As a result of the increase in the population since 1945 these arc urgent problems. We should bear in mind that we are now in the fifteenth year of the post-war period. The population in the greater London urban areas has grown and should now be given not only new high streets, but good shopping facilities. I hope also, that the Minister will pay attention to the urban areas' needs in the greater London and Middlesex areas.
I also wish to refer to new roads under construction. I know that this is a difficult problem and, as the Minister explained, some people's rights have to be considered in the matter of rehousing. I have received complaints from constituents about the slow rate at which the


work is proceeding. I have received corn-plaints about the Bath Road, the Cromwell Road extension and also about the Chiswick flyover. If the Minister can speed up these schemes I am sure that it will be appreciated not only by the people living in the areas, but also by the road users.
Finally, I trust that the Government will press on with the three aspects of road improvement which I have mentioned. The first is the construction of new roads with safety measures for all road users. On many occasions in the House I have spoken of the appalling number of road casualties. I believe that nearly 6,000 people were killed on the roads last year and well over 200,000 injured. Such a situation is a tragic blight on our civilisation. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister's schemes will pay very great attention to the needs of the people who use the roads for their every day affairs of life. There should be pedestrian subways and crossings with traffic control lights.
The other two aspects I mentioned were the application of traffic engineering techniques to ensure that maximum use is made of our present roads, and the provision of parking facilities off the highways. The Minister stated that the Government are pushing ahead with these road schemes. I believe that public opinion is now convinced of the urgent necessity for this road construction in our cities and urban areas. The News Chronicle published a Gallup poll some weeks ago. The question was: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had £50 million to spend, how should he spend it? Old-age pensions came first and new roads came second. That shows that public opinion is strongly in favour of new roads and other measures to deal with traffic congestion.
I trust that this debate will convince the right hon. Gentleman of the urgent need for new road construction to reduce traffic hold ups and delays in our cities and urban areas and to make the highways safe for the pedestrian and motorist.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: It is always pleasant to participate in a debate in which party feeling does not enter at all and in which everyone who contributes is trying to solve the

problem without the differences of party feeling.
I am very glad to find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) about the three points which he put forward as being essential if we are to solve this difficult problem of traffic congestion in our large cities. A good part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted to road construction and improvement. Of course, he is quite right to say that in many places improved roads are urgently needed. Thanks to my right hon. Friend, they are, of course, being provided.
I do not propose to spend any time on the provision of new roads and the improvement of existing ones, which is a long-term and costly business. I propose to deal with one or two immediate and less costly methods of solving the problem, and, like every other speaker so far this afternoon, I shall be talking about London because I live in London and represent a constituency on its outskirts. Indeed, I do not know very much about any other city.
In his speech my right hon. Friend said that we must make the best use of what we have got. Of course, that is absolutely correct. It is equally correct to say that we do not do so at the moment. Apparently there is still in this country the idea that the roads are there for anybody to use and that anyone can do whatever he likes with them. If people decide to leave a lump of machinery as big as a house in the middle of the road it is all right. It is not all right.
The object of a highway is to enable people to pass and repass on their lawful occasions, and that fact should be in the front of our minds when we are considering traffic congestion. There are still too many roads in our cities, and in London particularly, which have been provided with a carriageway 40 ft. wide on which the effective width for the passage and repassage of people is only about 24 ft. or less. Therefore, I very much welcome what the Government have done in the past two years about the problem of parking, and, in particular, I welcome the initiative which they have taken for the introduction of parking meter schemes.
As my right hon. Friend said, these schemes have proved successful and are now accepted by the public generally. It


is interesting to note how the pattern in the experience of other cities abroad has been repeated in London. In whatever part of the world it has been suggested that parking meters should be introduced there has always been an enormous amount of opposition to the proposal and a great outcry raised about it, as was raised here. Then, almost at once, as soon as the scheme is in operation people realise what a good thing it is. Exactly the same kind of thing has happened here as happened everywhere where this system has been adopted as a new thing.
Both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said they hoped that the introduction of new schemes would be speeded up. So do I, but I want to point out the danger in speeding them up too much. Meters make it easier for the short-term parker who wants to leave his car for up to two hours but more difficult for the long-term parker who wants to leave his car all day. That is a good thing because it helps to even the flow of traffic and discourages people arriving in the morning rush hour and leaving in the evening rush hour. It encourages people who want to come into the area in the middle of the day to see a dentist, or for a business appointment or for any other reason, but there must always be a large number of people who have to come in during the morning rush hour and have to go out in the evening rush hour.
If we push ahead too quickly with schemes which discourage those people from being able to park their cars and do not at the same time make provision for them to put their cars somewhere they will be forced to use public transport. That would not be a good thing because the public transport system in London is grossly overloaded at peak hours. I have had occasion before to call attention in the House to the appalling conditions on the Underground and the conditions under which my constituents travel daily to and from London. That is not improving very much. I am well aware that the figures published in the Report of the British Transport Commission show a reduction in the total number of passengers travelling, but in that Report the Commission says:
A feature which these average figures do not reveal is the intensification of daily peak demands which is due to a worse distribution of passengers. Generally, a decline in off-peak

traffics has been accompanied by an intensification in the daily peak.
If we go too fast with these schemes and neglect proper provision for people to park their cars all day we shall add to the already difficult conditions in public transport at peak hours, and I do not think we ought to do that. My right hon. Friend said that at the moment the balance seems to be slightly the other way. There are garages available for all-day parking which are not full, but if we go too much the other way, and drive all-day parking off the streets without providing other places for people to leave their cars, we shall have great difficulty in the public transport services. The two developments must go hand in hand.
I wish to make four suggestions about an improvement in the flow of traffic and an improvement in the car parking situation generally. My first suggestion has been made already by everyone who has spoken in the debate, and no doubt will be referred to by every other hon. Member who takes part in it, because it is so well known. That is the provision of off-street parks, particularly directed to all-day parking. Short-term parking can be dealt with, but garages and car parks must be provided off the streets for the all-day parker.
My second suggestion is in line with that. It is not easy to find places in which to build garages. It is not easy to find more places for off-street car parks, but, at the same time, there is a lot of commercial building going on. As commercial buildings are erected I should like to see them provided with space for cars to be parked, probably underneath the buildings, so that those who work there can park their cars. It is obviously not possible to lay down a rule that a new commercial building must contain car-parking space, but I suggest that those seeking permission to erect such a building should be asked to show cause why parking provisions cannot be made.
Another point in connection with commercial buildings is that, as far as possible, they should all have what I might call an access bay where cars can draw up outside the building without remaining in the main stream of traffic. That would assist the general flow of traffic. I illustrate what I mean by referring to the office of my right hon. Friend which has such a bay outside in Berkeley Square where his motor car may wait


for him and not obstruct the flow of traffic round the square. It would be a good thing to provide such a bay wherever possible for a new building.
The third point has already been made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. There are many streets which at peak traffic hours are extremely busy, but which at other times are very much less busy. Some are affected by a "No Waiting" restriction notice, but that notice permits vehicles to stop for twenty minutes to load or to unload. So we have the state of affairs at the busiest times of the day in which vehicles are stopping to load and unload, and, as a result, the available width of the carriageway is reduced. I know that proposals have been put forward by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to prevent this happening in a number of selected streets and there was a public inquiry at the beginning of last year. I think it was shown that the case for this restriction had not been proved in that instance. It seems to me that this should be kept very much in mind because there may be other cases where not such great hardship would be caused to the people with businesses and shops abutting on the streets, but where a considerable contribution could be made to the smooth flow of traffic.
My final suggestion concerns enforcement. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall spoke about this matter. It is quite useless for the Minister to make regulations, or for the House to pass Acts preventing people doing things without seeing that those things are not done. Everyone is familiar with the state of affairs in which there are "No Waiting "restrictions in streets, yet all down those streets, on both sides, cars are parked and three or four lorries are doubly parked. This morning on my way to a Committee I came through Albemarle Street, which, in my judgment, is wide enough for five cars abreast. There is unilateral parking there and cars were parked on both sides with lorries outside the rows of cars. In that street, which is wide enough for five cars abreast, there remained room for only one line of traffic. That is an absurd situation. We must do something drastic about it.
I do not blame the police for not taking stronger measures about that. There are

too few of them and they have too much to do. I think it time that we gave serious consideration to the establishment of traffic constabulary, or traffic wardens, a force of men with limited duties and limited powers who would be charged with the duty of seeing that the traffic regulations—particularly the parking regulations—are complied with. I do not see any great objection to haying a force of men with limited responsibility like that. We have park keepers who have limited responsibility, and we have patrols at school crossings with limited powers. All those people do a good job.
In order to relieve the police we ought to consider very seriously the establishment of a body of men such as I have suggested. I do not think that recruitment would be difficult. The hours of work would be much easier than those of the police—the men would not need to be available for 24 hours a day. Nor would the physical standards be so severe. I have in mind a body of men similar to those who join, say, the Corps of Commissionaires. They could provide valuable help in putting an end to this abuse of the law.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the vigour of his approach and on all the work that he is doing. If he continues as he has started, and if he adopts these and other suggestions that will no doubt be put in the course of the debate, it should help to produce more order out of what, too often, is chaos.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: The Committee will be very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) for having initiated this debate in such a very interesting fashion, and for having given the Minister the opportunity to review progress in the intractable problem of congestion in our large cities. It is one of the most serious social problems that all those in public life, in local government, business and commerce have to face. At its best, it is responsible for the loss of thousands of working hours every day in every large city and, at its worst, it is responsible for a good deal of frustration to the human spirit, and bad-temperedness. Indeed, in some cases, it is a cause of accidents.
Despite the hopeful pieces of information that the Minister has given today,


the most depressing factor is that, on the whole, the prospects seem to be getting worse rather than better because of the rate of increase in the number of motor vehicles. One realises that when it is remembered that in 1939 there were but 3,148,000 motor vehicles, and that, by the last quarter of 1957—the latest accurate figure I have been able to get—the number had risen to 7,425,000. From 1946, that represents a rate of increase in vehicles of 8 per cent. per annum.
If that rate of increase continues, we shall be faced with what I regard as the frightful and frightening prospect of 14 million motor vehicles on the roads in 1966. I say "frightful and frightening "in relation to smell, noise and mortality. They are all factors associated with petrol engines that we can disregard at our peril. I hope that no one will regard 14 million vehicles by 1966 as a fantastic forecast. Writing in the Westminster Bank Review, in May, 1953, three experts forecast an increase to 6,100,000 in motor cars by 1965. In actual fact, that figure was reached two years after they had made their forecast. In any plans being made during the next ten years we have to contemplate a volume of motor vehicles of about 14 million.
Bearing that in mind, I believe that the plans we know about, and the prospects announced today, are totally inadequate. We have either to recast completely the whole of our road concepts. or take steps to develop much more rapidly than we so far have done alternative forms of transport.
We can express the increase in traffic in another way. In 1911, there was one motor vehicle for each road mile. Today, there are about 30 for each road mile. In this narrow island that means we have —and it is inevitable that we shall have them even if the rate of increase slows down, which I do think not likely to happen unless there is a new policy—the densest traffic conditions of any country in the world.
The Road Research Laboratory has given estimates of what this congestion means in terms of cash. It estimates that at present traffic delays cost the nation about £155 million a year. That is only the crude cost. If we add to that personal time lost in going to work, the petrol consumed when engines are idling, and so on, the cost is even greater. No one,

therefore, can have any illusions. We are here considering one of the most serious problems of our civilisation.
I want to say something about London, as I have had a little to do with its problems. Until recently, I was for some years a member of the London County Council, and was glad to hear the Minister congratulate it on the schemes at the Elephant and Castle, Notting Hill, the Cromwell Road, and the duplication of the Blackwall Tunnel and others. Of course, progress has been chequered. Time and time again when action was about to be taken difficulties have arisen, sometimes about getting different interests to agree on the plan, but more often on uncertainty about finance.
It is extremely difficult for any planning authority—however much the work is co-ordinated—to get on with this type of major engineering unless it knows with much more certainty than is the case now what the Government's financial contribution will be. It is still the fact that the Ministry will not commit itself to financial obligations beyond the current financial year. That makes it extremely difficult far planning authorities to plan ahead with any degree of confidence.
In previous debates on this subject, I have given figures of the thousands of hours lost at the main intersections in London, but even since I last spoke the position has got a good deal worse, because more and more people are working in Central London and in the Greater London area. Between 1951 and 1954 the number of people working in the Greater London area—the Metropolitan Police area —rose from 3,841,000 to 5,149,000. In November, 1955, according to a check made by London Transport yin the central area alone—a radius of two miles from the Bank of England —1,142,000 people were brought into that area by public transport.
From time to time the Metropolitan Police take a census of all traffic at various points, from which one can judge the growth of traffic in the London area as a whole. In 1949, a traffic census taken at 78 points showed a total of 1,895,000 vehicles in one day. In 1956, that figure had grown to 2,725,000, an increase, making allowance for the fact that in 1956 there were a few more census points. of 33 per cent.
As my right hon. Friend has said, this has reflected in the vast increase in office accommodation in London, and particularly in the Central London area. Between 1948 and 1955, 36 million additional square feet of new office space were either erected or in course of erection, and a further 6 million square feet were added by office conversions. Bearing in mind the increase both in numbers of people and vehicles, I hope that the Committee will agree that the London County Council was quite right, in order to stop this increasing movement of population, in slowing down, or stopping permissions for, the provision of further office accommodation unless accompanied by some residential building as well.
The private motorists in London bear a tremendous responsibility for much of the chaos. I agree with my right hon. Friend that any scheme for banning the private car is neither practicable nor desirable on many grounds. But I hope that the 70,000 private motorists who come into the Central London area each day —and each car usually carries only one person—will appreciate the cost to the rest of the community as a result of their action. In London, we have now succeeded in bringing transport speeds back to the horse-bus of 1903.
I would very much like to see the motorists' organisations and everybody concerned taking part in a campaign to induce private motorists to use public transport wherever possible. There have been remarkable increases during the last two or three years in the number of private cars coming in. According to some figures from London Transport, the increases over 1939 and between 1952 and 1958 were as follows. There was only a 3 per cent. increase in private cars within the central area in 1952 over 1939, but by 1958 the increase over the 1939 level was 53 per cent.
Taking motor cars entering the central area, there was a 6 per cent. increase by 1952 over 1939, but a 56 per cent. increase in 1958 over 1939. If private motorists feel that they must come into London by car, the cost to the rest of the community is very high indeed.
I freely admit that one of the difficulties is that, just at the time when one would like to induce people to use public transport, public transport in many parts

of London is worse than it has ever been. I believe that this is largely due to the financial framework within which London Transport works and the directives it has had from the Government, which have meant that it had to cut its costs. By reducing services, it has driven more people to use the Underground or their private cars.
It might be very much wiser if the Government said that, in all the circumstances, they did not feel that London Transport need make its contribution of £5 or £6 million a year to central finances of the British Transport Commission but should run a better service. If a better service were provided, people certainly would use it. I myself go by public transport whenever I can, but there are occasions when it is extremely inconvenient to do so, particularly when one has a number of calls to make in a limited time. This is especially so in my constituency, Hayes and Harlington, which is not in the Central London area. I would often prefer to go by public transport, but, if I have to make three or four calls in one evening, the bus service is too infrequent for the purpose.
I am not asking for a general subsidy for London Transport. What I say is that the financial contribution which London Transport has to make to the central funds of the British Transport Commission ought to be revised, having regard to the peculiar travel problems of London.
There is no simple solution to London's traffic problem or indeed to the traffic problem in any other city. I have no words of wisdom to offer the Committee, but I should like to advance a few tentative suggestions. Before I come to them, I must say a word about the British Road Federation. I am becoming highly suspicious of the propaganda continually sent to me by the Federation. I may be unfair to the Federation, but it gives me the impression that if only we spent vast sums of money on new roads, in a few years there would be no traffic problem. It is a quite honourable Federation, no doubt, which has members interested in road making, road building and road use, but I cannot help regarding some of its propaganda rather as I should regard evidence in favour of the continuance of capital punishment submitted to a Royal Commission by a professional body of public executioners.
The British Road Federation is misleading a number of people by its suggestion that the problem can easily be tackled. The idea that one could easily have greatly improved road communications between cities and thereby solve the problem without rebuilding the cities completely, is quite futile. We must remember that there may well be 14 million cars on the roads by 1966 if the expansion continues as it is now. To do something of that kind would mean changing the character of many of our cities out of all recognition by making a large number of through roads. The loss of their character, charm and distinction would mean, in many cases, that they would lose their appeal to tourists, and the tourist industry is now one of our most important dollar earners.
I have already mentioned the readjustment in London Transport's financial commitment which I regard as absolutely essential to enable it to provide a better service. Secondly, I should like an appeal to go out from the Minister, backed by the motoring organisations—they seem generally to be quite silent about this—urging motorists not to come particularly to the centre of London unless it is absolutely essential. As I have said, they are largely responsible for our being back to the speed of the horse-bus, and that is a disgrace.
The Ministry's financial undertakings for new schemes should be made more flexible. The Ministry should be able to go beyond the current year and say what the probable contributions would be. It is very difficult for local authorities, especially authorities like the London County Council, to plan ahead when they are uncertain of the amount they will receive in grant from the Ministry. If there were more certainty there, we should be able to move very much more quickly with improvements in dealing with bottlenecks, and those improvements would be the ones to give quickest relief to traffic problems within cities.
I have in mind such things as flyovers, the widening of junctions, turn-offs left and right, and so forth. These improvements are not expensive compared with new road construction, but they could make all the difference to traffic flow, as I tried on a previous occasion to demonstrate to the House, and as the London County Council well knows from evidence in its possession.
I would again make a very strong plea for the Victoria Tube. Much has been said about that, and I will say no more now. I hope that, simultaneously with the appeal made to private motorists, every inducement will be offered to encourage people to put what traffic they can back on the railways, particularly goods traffic. It is extraordinary that the centre of London should be cluttered up with traffic passing through on the roads, a good deal of which could go by rail. There are difficulties on the railways, but I believe that the railways themselves, with their modernisation plans and the special freight services which they are now developing to various parts of the country, are ready and able to take the traffic. It is a public duty for all of us to put everything we can on to the existing railways which are well able to take it.
I am glad that reference has been made to clearways. On some main thoroughfares where police supervision is not good or, perhaps, cannot be made effective, there are as many as 500 cars parked to the mile. The Road Research Laboratory has estimated that in those conditions, particularly with cars coming in and out of parking, traffic is slowed down by something in excess of 3 miles per hour. In another connection, the Laboratory has calculated that, if one could in urban areas achieve an increase of 1 m.p.h. for vehicular traffic, £27 million a year would be saved. Putting it in another way, every hour's waiting time for heavy vehicles adds about 47 per cent. to the cost of running the vehicle.
What we do with the Queen's highway in keeping it free is tremendously important in London, not only in such areas as St. Marylebone and Westminster but on all the thoroughfares in and out of London. There must be greater coordination between traffic authorities if we are to have a quick solution, particularly in the Metropolitan area. I hope that all concerned will lose some of the defeatism which has been apparent in the past. It is no good being too optimistic without great efforts, having regard to the forecasted increase in vehicular traffic, but it is astonishing to think that the Barlow Commission, in 1940, took the view that, despite all the skill and ingenuity exerted
it seems impossible for effective action to keep pace with traffic requirements.


It almost looks as though the Commission was writing a kind of epigram o motto on London's traffic and the traffic of our other cities today. I hope that it is not so. I trust that everyone who has a responsibility in this matter, such as the Ministry and private motorists, will realise that this is one of the greatest problems which we as a nation have ever had to tackle.

5.40 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: We are debating an exceedingly complex problem, one which is troubling not only this country but, I think I am right in saying, practically every country which has an advanced economy. This problem was acute in London many years before the motor car was invented. The long-term solution is a matter of such things as town planning, wider and better roads, segregation of traffic and improved parking facilities.
I do not think that anyone questions that for a moment. Those are matters of imagination, time and money. Of these three things, I think that it is the first, imagination, which, in the past, has usually been in the most chronic state of short supply. However, we must hope for the best, and I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Department and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the number of imaginative schemes which they have set in train.
The practical problem at any given moment is how to make the best use of existing facilities. It is to that problem that I wish to confine my remarks. Before going any further, I think that we must be absolutely clear about what the object is. I submit that the No. 1 priority is safety. The second priority, subject to the first, is the highest practicable speed of circulation for the traffic which has to move about within a town or city. I use the word "within" because it seems to me that the requirement for a swift flow of transit traffic through a town or city should be placed third.
I suggest that there are three basic approaches to the problem. First, to limit and, if possible, to reduce the total number of vehicles which enter a congested city area. Secondly, to keep the

number of vehicles that are on the highway at any given moment to a minimum—in other words, the matter of parking. Thirdly, to improve the flow of traffic by keeping it under much stricter control than is the practice at present. I should like to say a word about each of these approaches in turn.
There is a number of ways in which the total volume of traffic can be limited. We can discourage the transit traffic from going through the centres of cities by having clearly marked and carefully chosen scheduled routes through which we want the transit traffic to pass. Of course, the best solution would be to have a by-pass, but I am dealing with the case where there is not a by-pass. How not to solve this problem is to be seen in a number of towns which I dare say hon. Members have had the misfortune to enter, where one is tempted off the main route through the centre of the city by encouraging signs which say that the road leads to Winchester, or wherever it may be, and once one gets into the back roads one is lost.
Five years ago, in a moment of folly, I was persuaded to pass through Birmingham on my motor bicycle, on my way south. Quite apart from the fact that the road appeared to be coated with a slippery composition which made it difficult to keep one's balance, the only direction signs which I saw showed the number of people killed in the area in the preceding month. It was a nightmare for strangers to get out of the city. That sort of thing enormously increases congestion in a city centre.
Surely it is desirable and possible in certain cases to impose strict special local limits on the size of commercial vehicles and public service vehicles that may enter certain areas of a city. By that means it would be possible to force long-distance heavy lorries to go round by some other route. It should also be possible to prevent the giant coaches going through the small streets in the centre.
We must also tackle the problem of the owner-driven car in the case where a person decides to use his car to go to his place of work in the city and to go home every evening. This point has been mentioned before. I must dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) said, namely, that we do not want to do


that because we should impose a greater strain on public transport if we stopped such gentlemen from using their private cars. I think that that is a complete fallacy. If 60 young men have to get to the centre of a city, even if they all travel in the same bus, they are less likely to cause a nuisance than if they travel in 60 cars.
The solution to the problem falls under two heads. There is first the negative, repressive approach. Although I do not want to enlarge on this because I would be out of order. I think that my right hon. Friend should ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the way in which certain cars are financed. Apart from that, the solution surely is to make it more difficult and expensive for these men to park their cars all day near their place of work. On the other hand, we must be constructive. We have not only to improve the public transport, but we must make it more attractive to that type of potential user.
Nothing has been said about the London taxi or taxis in other cities, hut I have always belonged to the school of thought which favours two sizes of taxi. I have always thought that it should be possible to run a small taxi suitable for one passenger. The advantage of the taxi over the owner-driven car is that it does not have to park at the other end and it is probably very much better driven.
Also, a more frequent motor omnibus service is required, and I should have thought that that could be achieved by having smaller buses. I am prepared to believe that the present London motor omnibus is a technical wonder, but I am equally certain that it is far too large for many of the roads which it uses. A mistake has been made by not concentrating on having smaller buses and running a more frequent services.
Finally, although I am sure that I shall not have unanimous agreement with this proposition, the Government would be well advised to encourage the person who is prepared to go to his place of work on a bicycle or moped. They are certainly the quickest method of transport in London and in many other cities. They are cheap and, except for the moped, they are quiet. In spite of all the criticisms, they do not occupy a

tremendous amount of the road because in London cyclists do not ride three or, for that matter, two abreast.
I should like to say a word about the problem of parking. I wish to make only two short points. The first concerns bus stops. Quite unnecessary danger and congestion is caused when buses discharge or embark their passengers well out from the roadway or alternatively when they pull out steeply when going ahead. In nearly every case, this happens because a vehicle has been parked too close to the bus stop. I suggest that the area of the bus stop should be much more clearly marked on the roadway.
I do not know whether this would require legislation, but if it does then we should pass it. It should be made an offence for a vehicle to park or to wait within the studded area. That should be strictly enforced. It would be easy to enforce. Conversely, it is only fair to add that it should be equally an offence for a bus driver to take on or to discharge passengers with any part of his vehicle outside the area. In any case, the area must be established first.
My second point concerns the so-called no-waiting restrictions. They are certainly unpopular in many districts and I am not convinced that they are properly enforced or, indeed, properly enforceable. My feeling is that we must have one of three choices: either unrestricted parking, parking for long enough to shop, or to attend a business meeting—in other words, the kind of parking which can be controlled by the parking meter; or, thirdly, we must have no stopping or waiting at all, a method which my right hon. Friend described as the "clear way". The no-stopping rule is not difficult to enforce and I suggest that it would be acceptable for the main routes in and out of our great cities, at least for certain periods of the day.
Why should we not have a clear way established on the main exit routes for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening? I realise that it would not be the same hour everywhere and that it would change as one moved away from the city centre. This system could be advertised and indicated by lights or some other display and during these periods the roads in question should be devoted to the sole purpose of people entering or leaving the city area.
If, in addition, we could make those roads one-way roads just for those critical hours, so much the better. That would be a much better solution to the great peak hour problem than trying to stagger the working hours. I would like to know from my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether this has ever been considered or tried. I do not think that it would be particularly unpopular.
Having said that, I must admit that there are one or two refractory or difficult problems in connection with parking. There is, for example, the problem of the doctor in the great cities. I do not pretend to offer a solution, but I am not at all sure that it should not be on the wholly different lines of asking the Minister of Health to run, if necessary, a subsidised service of drivers which doctors could call upon to avoid their cars having to be parked at whatever point they have to visit.
In turning to the more general question of control, I refer, first, to the greatest and most vital control of all in built-up areas, namely, the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. I have been for five years without a motor car, but I have recently started driving again. After this interval of time, nothing has shocked me more than the extent to which the 30 m.p.h. limit is now disregarded. I would go so far as to say that at least one driver in three cheerfully accelerates to over 40 m.p.h. whenever the way ahead is clear and that one driver in ten accelerates to 50 or 60 m.p.h. whenever the way is clear.
There is the further special case, which, unfortunately, is not so uncommon as we would like to think, of those of our fellow countrymen who make use of motor cars for their getaway after committing crimes. These gentlemen are usually in a particular hurry. They are a menace to the circulation of traffic in the city centres. I very much regret that when we considered the Road Traffic Bill we did not think of adding a Clause making it an additional statutory offence to use a motor car in connection with the commission of a crime. This practice is now sufficiently common to justify a measure of that nature.
To revert to my main theme of the speed limit, not only are these bursts of

speed dangerous, but they slow down the flow of the traffic. This point is not sufficiently realised. It takes only a quite small proportion of impatient drivers who indulge in these little bursts of speed to produce what is technically called a state of turbulence, which disturbs the even flow of the traffic and slows it down. For that reason, it is most important that the enforcement of the speed limit should be strictly observed.
I would go further and say that in exceptionally crowded streets, the flow of traffic would be improved if a lower speed limit were imposed. If a 15 m.p.h. speed limit were imposed in a place like Piccadilly, I think that it would be found that the flow of traffic there at busy times of the day would be accelerated and would render possible something which I have always wanted to see tried, namely, the idea of the whole street going "red" or "green". Hon. Members will be familiar with this idea. When the street goes green, all the traffic moves forward. When it goes red, all the traffic, wherever it may be, stops. This would enable us to dispense with pedestrian crossings in these streets. The pedestrian can cross the road when it is "red" and is not allowed to step off the pavement when it is "green." This is a method which should be tried.
That brings me to say a word or two about pedestrians. Like my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I speak as one who walks about London quite a lot, so I am not antipathetic to the pedestrian. I am, however, sure that in the interests both of pedestrians and of traffic as a whole, they should agree to accept a greater degree of control in city centres. For example, where pedestrian crossings are numerous, it should be unlawful to cross at other points. Where there are traffic lights, the pedestrian should obey them. Where bridges or subways are fitted, surely pedestrians should be obliged to use them.
There are many other ways in which the circulation of traffic could be speeded up without any added danger, simply by enforcing stricter controls. Some of them are so obvious that one wonders why more progress has not been made with them. Time does not permit me, however, to enlarge upon them now.
In conclusion, I pose this final question: what added powers are needed and


who should exercise them? This by itself could be the subject of a whole debate. Like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I am convinced that far-reaching changes are necessary. I do not believe that we shall improve traffic conditions in London, or, for that matter, anywhere else, without drastic changes. Reform is necessary just as much in the interests of road safety as in the speeding-up of the circulation of traffic. That was one of the reasons why, when speaking in the House on the subject of road safety three weeks ago, I advocated a Royal Commission. In matters which are so complex and controversial, only the conclusions of a strong and independent body are likely to carry the necessary weight to pave the way for the requisite legislation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is right and that the Royal Commission dealing with local government in the Greater London area may help us in the special case of London and in the rather restricted There in which it will be able to work. None the less, I still would like to see the appointment of a Royal Commission to deal with traffic problems as a whole and on a national scale.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I entirely agree with the closing remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) when he said that the problem needs far-reaching remedies. All hon. Members, on both sides, will agree with that summary of the position. This is not a problem that is peculiar to London. It is a vast national problem that must be solved by the decision of Parliament and in a way that will provide for the community at large a means of travel which is both convenient and suitable for society as a whole.
The Minister is to be congratulated on having started the motor roads. On all sides, we congratulate him upon being the first Minister of Transport in the fortunate position of being able to introduce this far-reaching change in our road system.
I believe that we agreed also with the Minister when he spoke of the need for greater funds to be made available to extend the road system. Sooner or later, Parliament must make up its mind whether or not we are to have an efficient road system or whether we are to carry

on with the old system of maintaining existing roads and making improvements here and there. Whilst I do not suggest that motor roads or ring roads are the absolute solution to the problem, I am perfectly satisfied that they would go a long way towards helping to solve it.
I know that the Minister, like all Ministers of Transport, is limited in what he can do by the amount of money which the Government make available for road construction and improvement. We must try to create in the minds of Ministers and of Members of Parliament generally a feeling that some way must be found whereby adequate money can be made available for carrying out very large schemes throughout the country of motor roads and ring roads and improvements of other roads in the urban areas.
I wonder whether we have exhausted all the ideas on how the money for this purpose could be raised. I should like to feel that the Minister and the Government would re-examine the question of how we can finance an even larger road programme than the Government have embarked upon at present. It is vital to industry that we should 'have roads capable of carrying the amount of traffic which modern circumstances demand. At the same time, apart from all the essential road work, we must also examine the question of the co-ordination of available public services. It is important that we should bring about a greater measure of co-ordination between rail and road in order to take full advantage of the facilities which are available in both sectors of the transport industry.
I agree entirely with the point made in the debate that many loads could very properly be taken off the roads and carried by the railway system. We must consider how far we can create a system which would provide for more co-operation between road and rail in an effort to solve this traffic problem. Reference has been made in the debate to the provision of parking facilities. I know that from time to time in debates of this kind we have considered all kinds of suggestions about the best way to provide adequate parking for vehicles. Has the Minister given a reasonable amount of consideration to the suggestion that at the Underground and railway stations outside the large cities and towns some form of garages or parking accommodation


should be provided so that car users might be tempted to travel to the station by car and then travel to the city by train or tube? There is a tremendous opportunity today to create an atmosphere in which facilities of that kind would be used by the motorist.
Reference has also been made to making full use of bus services. I do not want to trespass too far on the subject of bus facilities, but the gradual reduction of bus services and their greater infrequency are playing a part in creating further traffic difficulties. People who have been accustomed to use the bus services from the country areas find them less convenient nowadays because of their infrequency. I find that many people are being driven to join together and take a taxi from one of the tube stations in order to get home because of the infrequency of the bus services.
We ought to look at this problem of the reduction, limitation and discontinuance of bus services from the point of view of the interests of the travelling public. We are running into serious danger of losing sight of the fact that the idea of a public service is to provide proper facilities for the community. It may well be that the financial problems confronting the Underground railways and the London and provincial bus undertakings are problems which would not arise if their financial position were taken more seriously by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we continue to tax fuel oil to such an extent as 2s. 6d. a gallon we are bound to create a position in which the transport undertakings cannot possibly meet their obligations to the travelling public. In the consideration of all these matters I hope that the Minister will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution he can make towards the solving of these problems.
Reference has also been made in the debate to the provision of subways. I believe them to be very desirable. They would be used far more extensively by the public if they were modern and if they were equipped with escalators. There is an example outside the Palace of Westminster where there is a subway under one section of the roadway which few people use because it is necessary first to walk down steps and then to walk up steps.
Would the Minister consider making an experiment? What could be better than to do so outside this building? Would he consider providing a new subway from Whitehall to New Palace Yard, fitted with escalators, which Members of Parliament could use when coming from Westminster or Whitehall? Then we could see exactly how much the public would use it. I am sure that older people are deterred from using subways because of the steps.
I agree with the points made about traffic warnings. It is a waste to have so many policemen on point duty when there is so much crime which needs their attention. I would like to see a corps of wardens, with sufficient limited authority to direct the traffic at given points. I believe that would be economical, because it is important to use policemen on the beat. Therefore, I hope the Minister will consider this suggestion also.
I do not pretend that the vast problem of traffic congestion can be solved in a few years. It is a problem which is growing because of the ever-increasing amount of road transport. I would not support any policy which would result in the limitation of its use because I feel that the duty of Parliament is to try to find a way whereby we can make the roads suitable for the purpose for which they were intended. If limitation has to be applied it should be for only a very short period, because in the long run it is not in the best interests of the community. I hope that the problem will be approached in the spirit of this debate, namely, that it is not a political question but a vast national problem on which we require the best advice we can get from any source, political or otherwise.
I conclude by saying that although I have congratulated the Minister upon the fact that he has been able to do so much during the last few months for the building of motor roads and the planning of further roads, I think that he has been fortunate in the economic climate he has enjoyed. I say candidly that I hope we shall go on with this work and that the next Labour Government will also carry it on, in order to bring to our people the system of transport which is essential to the communal life of the nation.

6.17 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I shall not apologise for making what will be a constituency speech, because I


happen to represent a constituency through which many roads pass, from east to west and from west to east. Our parking problems are considerable, and so much has been said about the general problem that I will confine my remarks to one or two points.
I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend on the completion of the Cromwell Road. It has made an enormous difference to that part of London, because not only has the road itself been a success, but it has relieved the traffic on all the other roads running parallel with it. We have also had the great advantage of widening schemes both at Kensington High Street and Notting Hill Gate. The result is that the flow east and west of our traffic is infinitely better than it was five years ago. Our problem is not the problem of passing from west to east or from east to west, but everything that is happening off the main roads.
We are fortunate, or unfortunate, in having in that part of London buildings winch attract the greatest crowds from outside. We have Earls Court and Olympia, the Albert Hall and various museums. From time to time there are literally thousands of cars coming in from outside the area whose owners insist on parking reasonably close to where they are going. I represent more hon. Members than any other Member of the House of Commons for instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is one of my distinguished constituents. One has only to see that part of London at the time of the Motor Show, at Earls Court, when there is also a large show on at Olympia, to realise the impossible condition into which the traffic gets. Not only is there not a single place in which to put a car for half a mile on either side of those places, but the traffic going to them blocks for the time being both the traffic east to west and north to south. Therefore, I shall deal primarily with the question of parking.
I heard a word of hope from my right hon. Friend in that he said that there was a possibility of permission being given for garages to be built under Hyde Park. I suggested long ago that the part of Kensington Gardens immediately opposite the Albert Hall, which is shut and never used, should be used as a special parking place for all gatherings at the

Albert Hall. This would relieve all the streets in that area of the hundreds of cars that come in whenever there is a big meeting in the Albert Hall.
That suggestion was not approved, but since the road to Knightsbridge runs several feet below the level of the park, there is no reason why large car parks should not be made in that area. This would not only relieve traffic on those occasions, but it might go a long way towards freeing the roads in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), in Mayfair and St. Marylebone, further east.
Earls Court is a much more difficult problem. There is a tube station alongside Earls Court and there is also one alongside Olympia, but it seems to me, though I may be wrong that no adequate special arrangements are made by London Transport to deal with the huge crowds that go there. Would it not be possible to run more special trains to deal with the crowds? If that were done it might induce people to park further away and come to Earls Court by tube train and return to their cars by the same method.
Olympia Station, in particular, is not used in anything like the way it used to be years ago. The result is that if trains are not run from the station it becomes one of the worst places to clear when there is a big crowd. People have to wait in queues literally hundreds of yards long for buses.
For some reason or another my part of London is used as a parking space by hundreds of people who come into London by day and by people who come in to spend the night in London. If one goes round Kensington at night one finds that practically every side street has cars on both sides of it. The number of complaints I receive in a year from my constituents who, on coming home from the theatre, find that they cannot get near their front doors and have to drive round for half a mile before they can find somewhere to leave their cars, runs into dozens.
Finally, as was mentioned in the Budget debate, this area is also a dumping ground for old cars. Last year, a large number of cars were collected by the police off Camden Hill. We stirred the police to action and they found that there were dozens of cars that had not been used


for months and whose licences had expired. The police said that there were so many abandoned cars in London that they had not the space to take them to get rid of them. The parking problem could be relieved if regular measures were taken to examine the streets. If it was found that the licence of a car had expired the car should be removed off the streets, thus enabling those people who want to get to their own front doors to have a better chance of doing so than they have today.
The problem of parking at night will not be solved until garages are built or garage areas are available off the streets. Queen's Gate at night is an unbelievable sight. Right down the middle of the street one sees a double row of cars. Some of these are valuable cars and are left there all night. In addition, there is a single line of cars almost the whole way along near the pavement.
If garages were available, one could tell people to garage their cars. Important as the problem is of getting traffic going in London, the provision of space for garaging is almost as important in many areas of London. It is only when we have the garage space and people can garage their cars off the roads that we will be able to deal with the problem of traffic coming in.
The real problem by day and by night is caused by the thousands of cars that came in carrying only one person and are left parked either for the whole day, or, in some cases, for a week-end in London. I wonder whether the time will not come when we will have to say that from a reasonable distance outside London cars carrying only one person must stop and only cars with a full load will be allowed in. We did this during the bus strike. It was done voluntarily and it made an enormous difference to the flow of traffic. I am not sure that we can go on allowing literally thousands of cars carrying only one person to come into London, because it is these cars that create congestion.
As an old railway director, I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) that far too much traffic goes on the road today that ought to go by rail. More persuasion and, if necessary, legislation to that effect would have my support. On the other

hand, I do not think that it is the railway vans or lorries that cause congestion in central London. The problem caused by cars with only one occupant must be solved either by providing garage space, or parking space, or by compelling them to come in fully loaded.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Boyd: One thing about which there is general agreement is the necessity for taking rather drastic action to clear the way through our cities. We want to divert traffic that has no reason to go through the centre of a big city to go round it and avoid it. Another point that has emerged during the debate is that parking is perhaps the biggest cause of congestion and the most urgent problem requiring still more drastic action.
Quite a lot has been done about developing and improving the roads, making motorways and improving inner circle roads, but we still seem to be rather timid about the parking problem. I think that is why so many hon. Members have tended to concentrate their attention on it.
I did not hear the Minister say anything about stopping double parking. If I am wrong, I hope to be corrected. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it when he winds up the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said, double parking seems unfair. I hope that every motorist has a social conscience about these things and enough common sense not to park in a place which would be unfair to other traffic. At any rate, that is what most motorists do most of the time, but they get extremely frustrated in their search for a space to park and eventually resort to double parking.
The rules for which we ask are not rules which would be resented, and the majority of motorists are the very people who want stricter rules, so that their cars can get through and so that they can have freer movement. If the rules are carefully worked out, everyone will benefit so much from the clearing of the way that they will be quite willing to accept the limitations. That will also result in many motorists deciding not to bring their cars into the middle of the city and preferring to come in by bus or train and to walk from the station or bus stop, which may


be nearer to their destination than the nearest car park.
That would cut down the number of car journeys and would make it easier to keep city bus services running adequately. It would also encourage the shift back to the railways. It is very curious that the railways seem unable to pay their way at the very time that the roads are heavily over-congested. The volume of heavy traffic going by road through the cities and across country—incidentally belching out smoke which must be reaching a quantity were it adds seriously to the health danger in the atmosphere—cannot be economic if everything is taken into account.
I still cannot accept the assurance, which one hears from time to time, that heavy lorries are a more economic way of transporting heavy goods than are the railways. I should have thought that that traffic should go back to the railways. No doubt when we re-nationalise road haulage the railways will have a larger say and will probably take that traffic. That is probably a better way than trying to price the lorries off the road by heavy taxation, which may in practice be more unfair.
Considering the degree of congestion associated with a few extra inches of width of a vehicle, or the danger when a vehicle is so large that it obscures a large amount of road, I wonder whether the tax paid by owners of some of the larger vehicles corresponds to the degree of their nuisance value and congestion-causing capacity on the roads.
One can travel anywhere on the roads today and find that it is a matter of passing not individual vehicles but whole trains of vehicles headed by a heavy, slow-moving vehicle which it is difficult to overtake. Such things cause tremendous delay and the whole train is held up for miles, through cities and across the countryside, by relatively few vehicles. I wonder what the cost is of the resulting hold-ups. It cannot be met by the owners of the vehicles and it may not be feasible to deal with this problem by market mechanism. It may be better to have a co-ordinated transport system and to put the heavy stuff on the railways, because it is common sense to put it on the railways even if under present arrangements it is better to send it by road.
We must be prepared to be rather drastic about no parking on main roads if we are to have clear passage on the motorways. In any case, most motorists do not want to park on main roads because it is obvious that to do so holds up traffic. I cannot help thinking that a large proportion of accidents results from the presence of stationary vehicles on heavily congested roads. The safety factor is only one of many reasons for keeping a clear way along main roads, both in towns and outside.
I hope that we shall push ahead with getting considerable sections of otherwise congested highways totally banned to stationary and slow moving vehicles. The expression "motorway" is presumably intended to imply that unmotorised traffic cannot use the roads. Perhaps we shall have a minimum speed limit somewhat higher than has yet been seen in other countries which have had these motorways for longer than we have had them. Now is the time for us to get ahead of those countries and to provide for a substantial minimum speed limit. It is the slow-moving vehicles which cause congestion, and such a minimum speed limit would be one way of getting some of the lorries off the road and making it not worth while to send so much traffic by lorry.
We are all familiar with particular roads and places, and many hon. Members have pressed the need for spending more money on certain projects. To judge from the Budget, this is a year for spending more money on re-expanding employment, and I should have thought that more might be done on clearing the way around some of the big cities. An instance is provided in Bristol where the remaining section of an inner circle road is held up for want of Government permission to go ahead—I understand on financial grounds. In practice, there is a heavy financial loss resulting from the hold up of his final link in the inner circle road, because developers of the shop sites in the neighbourhood are refusing to go ahead with their plans, so that land lies vacant and unused.
The city council is some way ahead of the Government and has cleared the land and is ready to go ahead with the completion of the circle road. Meanwhile, the land lies vacant and the city council is not getting the rents and rates


which it should be drawing for that land. Thus there is a substantial economic loss in the failure of the attempts to be economical. It would be more economical to go ahead more rapidly with developments of this kind. In many cases there might be a danger of other building developments making it more expensive to go ahead later on. I ask the Minister to be willing to put more money into this sort of work. I think that he is looking for the support of the House in his applications to his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for more money to spend on roads. I am sure that he will have that support, and we look forward to a more rapid rate of permissions for these schemes to go ahead.
I want now to refer to safety. I agree with what has been said about the ineffectiveness of some safety propaganda. Much the most effective of the various forms of road safety propaganda has been the sign boards saying "Accident black spot", or "So many people were killed on this section of road last year". I think that those posters shake people sufficiently, and if that sort of thing were done more widely at places where there have been accidents—and, of course, the facts must be correct—the posters would make people think.
It may be said that following one particular method of propaganda too far will make it lose some of its effectiveness, but as that example applies to particular places and as people do not know why there have been accidents on that stretch of road, they are liable to drive more carefully along that section and perhaps some of their careful driving will overlap along their subsequent route. There may be other and equally effective ways of making people realise the seriousness and the danger of careless or inefficient driving. I commend the further use of that method.

6.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): This has been a very interesting debate and we appreciate the opportunity afforded by the Opposition to discuss the very important topic of traffic congestion in our cities. I am sure that every hon. Member could give an account of the traffic troubles in his constituency. We have heard a number of valuable ideas about

how to improve the situation, and constructive suggestions have been made. I wish to express the gratitude of the Government for the objective and constructive way in which the debate has been conducted.
I must remind the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd) that Bristol has had the first two stages of its scheme approved and remind him that the third stage, for which he was asking, must take its turn with many other important city schemes. We are well aware of the importance of the Bristol scheme, but it must take its turn.
We accept that we are facing a serious situation regarding city traffic and there is no complacency on the part of my right hon. Friend or myself. On the other hand, we feel that we need not despair. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) started his speech on a slightly despairing note, but I thought that he finished more confidently. A solution can be found although we have to accept that traffic congestion has been worsening over recent years. But there is a sign that various things are being done to improve the situation. The four factors—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Nugent: I was about to observe that the four factors that will solve our problem, which were referred to during the debate, are: first, traffic engineering; secondly, highway planning; thirdly, enforcement; and, fourthly, public transport. Each one of these factors must receive the necessary attention if we are to get our traffic moving smoothly and keep the centre of our cities alive.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) referred to the newspaper articles by Mr. Burton Marsh. He is a great American traffic engineering expert and I think that we can learn something from the experience of America. Although the Americans have not been able to find all the answers, they have been living with the universal motor car for twenty or thirty years longer than we have, and they have had a great deal more experience. Necessity has driven


them to learn some lessons. The first lesson, which they learned rather painfully, was that they started off on the wrong foot.
They thought that they would be able to solve their traffic problems in the cities by building vast new urban motorways, freeways, right into the heart of the cities. By doing that they thought that they would make it possible for the motor cars owned by everyone to go to the middle of the cities so that people could reach their place of work, and that then they could allow the public transport systems to become obsolete and fade out. Today, no forward-thinking traffic engineer in America holds that view. It is realised that a public transport system is basic to keeping the centre of a city alive, and that whatever great new roads may be built, they cannot carry more than a fraction of the total commuting traffic in and out of the cities.
Today, authorities in the American cities are making desperate efforts to revive the public transport systems which have been allowed to languish over the last two decades, and they are having a difficult time in doing so. Hon Members will probably know the state that Los Angeles has got into. It is a classic example of a city which built a comprehensive system of freeways and motorways. In the 3,000 acres of the city centre no less than two-thirds are taken up with roads, parking spaces and loading spaces, and only one-third of the city centre is left for building. So that it is not surprising that the "traffic boss" of Los Angeles, Mr. Taylor, says that the business of the city is languishing. It is bound to and, incidentally, the average traffic speed is still no more than that of a horse and buggy. So I think we may learn something from that.
We still have our public transport systems. Anxieties have been expressed about them, and rightly, because not only must they be maintained but we have to do all we can to improve them. The public transport system is the pivot of the life of a big city. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington correctly said that there are 1 million people who go daily to the central area of London and only 70,000 come in motor cars—or, rather, there are only 70,000 cars, which is roughly the same thing. With all the congestion we experience today, only 70,000 cars are

involved. That is a marginal figure, less than 10 per cent., and it is evident that the public transport system is the first factor to consider.
That is one reason why we are modernising our whole public transport system, not only London Transport but the suburban and main line railways as well. Several of these have been electrified and others are in the process of being electrified. The first stage of the North Kent coast system is coming into operation next month. This improvement of services will go on progressively and make it possible to carry more commuters in greater comfort and, I hope, with less difficulty during the peak traffic periods.
I know of the troubles experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden during the peak traffic periods on the line in his constituency, and the consequent discomfort. But I do not despair about the possibility of staggering working hours, or of a solution being found by the London Travel Committee which will result in the staggering of traffic. When one considers the amount of accommodation available in public transport during the off-peak hours, one realises that we cannot give up all thoughts of any scheme based on the staggering of hours.
In some way we must work out a means of using that accommodation so that people may travel in greater comfort; and the fact that fewer people may travel in motor cars will not mean that during the peak hours the numbers using the public transport will be worse than ever. I say straight away, therefore, that our view is that the public transport system is a basic factor and that we shall do everything possible not only to maintain it, but, where possible, to improve it.
Details have been given of road building schemes which are going ahead. The broad picture is that we are devoting a large slice of the total road expenditure, getting up to £60 million a year, to urban schemes. Wherever possible we are improving intersections and removing bottlenecks, not only in London but in other large towns. Urban motorways were mentioned, in, I thought, the right balance, by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. The provision of such motorways may be right in some circumstances, but the cost is high not only in cash, but also in amenity and severance, and in


sociological interference with the life of the community. However, as my right hon. Friend has explained, we are prepared to use them wherever they are justified.
It is quite clear from the American example that this will be only part of the answer and that we have to think of other things as well. We are certainly going in for long-term planning for urban roads. This is being done by the London Roads Committee, of which I am Chairman, and the other conurbation committees which are being set up in the country.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the difficulty that the L.C.C. has in planning ahead. We are doing our best to help the Council in this. We have to accept that each year Parliament must vote the money which is needed to assist the L.C.C. in carrying out its schemes. I accept that there is, therefore, a practical problem for the L.C.C., but by consultation at official level we are able to help it put preparations in hand for two or three years ahead.
Traffic engineering, which has been mentioned a good deal today, is a success in America. The Americans have learned a great deal about it and have benefited from it in the movement of traffic in their cities. They have achieved smoother, faster and safer traffic movement. This is particularly so in Chicago and Detroit, where the progressive reduction in accidents over the last twenty years is really impressive. I am certain that there is something we can do here on those lines.
Do not let me leave the impression that nothing is being done here. Many of our highway engineers know a great deal about traffic engineering. But the main picture in our cities is one of piecemeal treatment; intersections are dealt with singly; single streets are made one-way as opposed to what I would wish to see, which is comprehensive traffic schemes for the whole of our cities.
To bring that about, it is necessary for each city to have a team of traffic engineers who can study the movement of traffic by origin and destination surveys, treating a whole city as a single unit, and then advise upon the regulations which will make it possible for the traffic to move smoothly and safely to its destina-

tion by eliminating conflicts of traffic, and so on.
When I talk about traffic, I include the movement of pedestrians just as much as vehicles. In all our new road schemes we provide for pedestrian subways. I have taken note of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) that we might do something about the subway outside the House of Commons and I will see whether it is possible to make it a little more convenient than it is now. It is not a very attractive subway and it might be a useful "guinea pig" to show whether we can set an example in our own neighbourhood.
In this picture of traffic engineering we can no longer think, as we tend to do now, in terms of moving a single vehicle from point A to point B. It is now necessary for somebody, preferably the city authority, to think not about moving individual vehicles but whole streets full of vehicles; whole columns of vehicles, and, indeed, the traffic of the whole city. That to us is a new concept. No longer can we think about moving individual vehicles. We must think about the flow of all the traffic in the city.
One sees in American cities how the traffic is controlled from a central head-quarters by closed circuit radio control or direct electric cable to all the traffic lights at the intersections on the main traffic roads, so that at peak traffic periods morning and evening they can offset the intersections and get the smoothest flow of traffic with the minimum of interference to the fast traffic stream. They can also use the reversible lane system, so that there may be six in-traffic lanes in the morning and two out, and six out-traffic lanes in the evening and two in. They do that by means of traffic lights hung across the road, once again operated from a central headquarters.
It is quite easy to have refinements suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), such as a clear way on the main urban traffic routes at peak periods. I have seen that done by the closing down of street parking meters at four o'clock, after which no one is allowed to park. Such refinements can be applied provided that there are traffic engineers to study the position.


That is a basic necessity. It is impossible to make traffic regulations until the facts are known.
As my right hon. Friend has said, we have been doing a lot about this. We realise that the first step is to get these men trained and, with the help of a generous group of industries and organisations, we now have the encouraging prospect of a chair of traffic engineering arid highway engineering being started at Birmingham. I might mention that there is already a post-graduate course at Imperial College, London, and at Newcastle, but I think that the Birmingham venture will provide an impetus.
I have also recently had consultations with the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association, whose members are the people who will employ these traffic engineers. We have a traffic engineering section in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, but it is not our job to look after the traffic of a city, that is a job for the city authorities. We have to sell the idea to city authorities and get them interested in dealing with this problem, and in employing the traffic engineers after they have been trained.
I have asked the local authority associations whether they are willing to advise their constituent members to start developing traffic engineering units. I am hopeful that shortly we shall be able to get them to send out general advice on this subject. The traffic engineers will get the facts and it is up to the authorities to make regulations which will result in better traffic movement in our cities. This is also the way to safer movement and to the elimination of traffic conflicts which in themselves are a serious source of danger.
I noted the comment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall about posters for better driving. This is a matter of personal taste. Some people think that shock tactics are the most effective, others prefer the anodyne approach—and I know that the right hon.

Gentleman has a strong stomach because recently he went to see "The Cenci", at the Old Vic. I think that we must leave the choice of posters to the local road safety committees.
In the meantime, on the question of traffic engineering, my right hon. Friend and I are pushing ahead to get more parking meters. A basic feature of traffic engineering is to control kerb space and stop the long-term parking which is cluttering up the streets. That has been accepted on both sides of the Committee, and I am happy to clear up any uncertainty by saying that it is our intention to press ahead with this matter.
Enforcement has also been mentioned. I have no time, in the concluding minutes of this debate, to go into that matter in detail, but I entirely agree that enforcement is a basic requirement. It does not matter how good are the traffic schemes and how well designed are the regulations unless there is proper enforcement. I have been assured by the police that they will be able to enforce the regulations as parking meters spread from one area to another, and I, for my part, would warmly welcome the experiment of using traffic wardens, who, I believe, would be a great help.
We have massive traffic problems before us and in the short time at my disposal I have indicated four factors by which we can solve these problems. We are giving vigorous attention to each one of them. We feel that they will progressively bear fruit, help us to reduce traffic congestion, improve the traffic flow, improve road safety and reduce the number of accidents in our cities. For these reasons, I feel that we can confidently say that the Government have this very difficult problem completely in hand.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Hughes-Young]— put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Basil de Ferranti: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
Some hon. Members may consider that the House has had a surfeit of water in the Committee upstairs for some time past. I apologise for taking up further time on the Bill, which I am opposing in no spirit of wanton obstruction but purely in order to represent the interests of my constituency, and because I want to see a solution of the problem of water supply in the area.
This is a comparatively simple proposition. There are no hydrogeological considerations such as have been involved in other Bills. The Bill involves principle as well as detail, and I will endeavour to be as brief as I can in putting the points across.
The ancient and famous city of Lancaster has a population of some 43,000 and a rateable value of £615,000. It has supplied Morecambe with water in bulk for many years, right from the days when Morecambe was the little village of Poulton. In the Bill, Lancaster proposes to take over the water undertakings of the borough of Morecambe and Heysham, and the water undertakings of the rural district councils of Lancaster and Lunesdale.
Morecambe is no longer a little village. The population of Morecambe has now risen to 37,000 and it rises every summer to no fewer than 80,000 people. The rateable value is £703,000, which is nearly £100,000 more than that of the City of Lancaster. Furthermore, the population of Lancaster is declining whereas the population of Morecambe, I am proud to be able to say, is increasing steadily. This is my first reason for opposing the Bill, which would empower the tail to wag the dog. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean) might say, "Some tail," but I would be fully justified in retorting, "Some dog". Another

interesting fact is that Lancaster is a non-county borough. It is almost entirely unprecedented for a non-county borough to propose a take-over of this kind.
My next reason is that the Minister is opposed to the Bill. I would like to read out what was said in evidence before the Committee in the other place. It is:
The Minister notes that the purposes of the Bill could be achieved by an order made under the Water Act, 1945. In all the circumstances he considers that the proposals of the Bill do not represent the right approach to the problems of removing the water undertaking in this area, and that the only form of administration for the new undertaking is a joint board representative of all the local authorities concerned.
He went on to say that he must recommend the Bill be rejected and he said this emphatically.
Regrouping has been taking place all over the country under the 1945 Act, and it is required because, although the country has plenty of water, we have under-investment in the fixed assets for the supply of water. The Minister indicated in Circular 52/56 the general way in which he felt that regrouping ought to be carried out. He further emphasised the point in Circular 41/58, paragraph 5, in which he said that he:
will not normally feel able to support proposals for a takeover unless the initiating authority's statutory area of supply is appreciably more in population or in rateable value than 50 per cent."—
that is the operative figure—
of the proposed enlarged area.
The Lancaster Corporation has 44 per cent. of the population of the proposed enlarged area. It has 36 per cent. only of the rateable value of the proposed enlarged area. Lancaster's statutory area of supply, which is what is mentioned in the Minister's circular, has 41 per cent. of the rateable value, that is 9 per cent. less than the Minister's criterion. It has more than 55 per cent. of the population in the winter.
What is so important is that Morecambe is a most attractive place to go to for a holiday.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Hear, hear.

Mr. de Ferranti: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that support. About 40,000 visitors come to Morecambe in the summer, and the population of Morecambe goes up to 80,000 in the summer


months. It is obvious that the capacity to supply water must be related to the peak demand and not to the average demand. If one takes the summer figures, the population of Lancaster's statutory area of supply is only 41 per cent.—which is well below the criterion—of the total area concerned.
The reason for the Minister's opposition seems clear. The Minister cannot deny right of access to Parliament for these people to promote their own Bill, but if a Private Bill is contrary to the Minister's express wishes it makes the Minister's statutory task under the 1945 Act extremely difficult.
The next reason for opposing the Bill is financial. In evidence in the other place, the promoters claimed that a joint board, which the Minister would like to sec formed, would be more expensive than the takeover proposals. Costs go up if more staff is taken on. It certainly would be necessary for a manager and an engineer to be appointed, but it will be necessary for such an appointment to be made whatever form of regrouping we use, joint board or takeover. This brings out an interesting point. Lancaster has not a full-time water engineer. It is unprecedented for a non-county borough without a full-time water engineer to propose a take-over of this kind.
The promoters claim that a joint board would make it necessary to appoint a clerk and a treasurer. By the now well-known Parkinson's Law it would also be necessary to have secretaries, office boys, cups of tea and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. This is all unnecessary. The existing staffs at the town hall could do these jobs adequately. I could cite several places where this is done, namely, Chesterfield. Guildford, Godalming, Accrington, Southport and the Thanet Water Board, se: up under the Kent Water Act, 1955. We must all realise that the object of regrouping is to provide efficient service to the consumers. There is a nation-wide need for capital expenditure because this sort of activity requires strength both administratively and financially.
The larger area, which is the object of regrouping, will provide this strength. The objective of the larger area is to be able to employ more staff. We will employ more staff, whether we have a joint board or a takeover. Therefore, I submit that financially it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
My next reason for opposition concerns the ownership of the fixed assets of water supplies in the area. It is clear to us that Lancaster has done an extremely fine job in supplying Morecambe with water in bulk for these many years. Tribute should be paid to it for that, but it has only been able to do that thanks to the inhabitants of Morecambe paying adequately for the water they have consumed. In view of the additional capital expenditure that will be required, the inhabitants of Morecambe and the rural districts will have to continue paying handsomely for the water they use to provide capital for extending the service. It seems, therefore, not only equitable but essential for Morecambe and the other areas to retain an effective measure of control over the body which is to effect expenditure in future.
My final reason for opposition is a question of representation. I was a little alarmed to hear the view expressed in another place that representation was a matter of no importance whatever. I am utterly opposed to that view and I am sure all hon. Members of the House must be utterly opposed to the view that representation is of no importance. It is the whole basis of our democratic institutions. If the Bill gets through with the Amendments proposed in another place. Lancaster will have a two-thirds majority on the water committee and the council will have overriding authority and responsibility, whereas, if we were to set up a joint board, Lancaster would have eight members out of twenty, which represents a much fairer form of representation.
Those are my reasons for opposing the Bill and for supporting the formation of a water board. First, Morecambe, with the rural districts, is bigger in population and rateable value than Lancaster. Secondly, the Bill is contrary to the terms of the Minister's circular. Thirdly, it will not provide cheaper water. Fourthly, people should be denied representation only in the most exceptional circumstances, which clearly are not present in this case.
One thing I should like to stress is the excellent relations which exist between Lancaster and Morecambe. They have been going on for many years and they are two of the friendliest neighbours. There are many adherents of the White Rose in Morecambe, although it is jadedly


referred to as "Bradford by the Sea", and there is no question of another "War of the Roses". Credit should be given to Lancaster for the very fine way in which it has served the inhabitants of Morecambe. I do not think anyone can blame Lancaster for promoting this Bill, however expensive it is for its ratepayers. Similarly, I do not think that anyone can blame Morecambe for opposing it, because, clearly, it is not in its best interests.
The Bill has gone far enough and has cost enough. The ratepayers of the two towns should not be called upon to pay any more. Hon. Members will know of the extremely high cost of being represented by counsel before a Select Committee. I ask the House to accept the Amendment I have moved so that my constituents will be spared further expense and will be able to look forward to having representation on a joint board appropriate to the importance of the borough and to sharing control of a profitable organisation for the whole area.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: We have heard an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti), whose views on this subject, I need hardly say, are not identical with mine. Why should they be?
My hon. Friend made a number of very valid points, but I think that he overlooked—or perhaps it would be fairer to say he did not give sufficient weight and sufficient emphasis to—a number of other points. I should like to take the opportunity of underlining that. The Act of 1945, which is the origin of this whole matter, places emphasis first and foremost on efficiency. We find that same theme of efficiency echoed in the Minister's circulars. The object is to produce more efficient water undertakings.
I ask the House to consider for a moment what this Bill does, first as to efficiency. The Lancaster water undertaking has supplied the needs of the district, including Morecambe, for more than 100 years and, I submit, it has done so with the greatest efficiency. That, I think, has never been challenged or disputed by anyone. Proposals are contained in the

Bill to maintain that efficiency in future. That efficiency has never been challenged, either before the Select Committee in another place or in any petition in this House. A point which has not been sufficiently emphasised is that, at present, it supplies 98 per cent, practically 100 per cent., of the water involved.
Another interesting proof of the efficiency with which the Lancaster undertaking operates is contained in the attitude of another local authority in my constituency, the Carnforth Urban District Council, which, it will be seen, is among the promoters of the Bill. The interesting thing is that this is an instance of an undertaking taken over by Lancaster at the request of the Minister. Since 1953, it has had experience of being taken over and of how Lancaster treats a smaller undertaking which it takes over. It has shown satisfaction of the treatment received by helping to promote this Bill. I do not think that we could have clearer proof of the efficiency of Lancaster's water undertaking than that.
An integral part of efficiency nowadays must surely be cheapness, the amount of money involved. Here I join issue with my hon. Friend. I do not think that it can be seriously disputed in the light of the evidence heard by the Select Committee that the proposals contained in the Bill will provide water at an appreciably lower cost than would be possible under a joint board.

Mr. de Ferranti: It is true that the petitioners did not give evidence before the Lords Committee, so I would agree that in view of what was said before the Committee a case was not made that water could be provided as cheaply, but I am sure that if their evidence had been heard before the Committee it would have been clear that my case was made.

Sir F. Maclean: My hon. Friend has provided me with some very valuable ammunition for something I am going to say a little later. He shows how very important it is for both sides, not just my side, that the evidence on both sides should be properly heard; and that, of course, has not yet been done.
My hon. Friend mentioned the cost of a full-time water engineer. I think he will find that the additional cost per annum over and above the expenditure on the full-time water engineer is no less


than £26,000. It will involve an increase of about fivepence, or about 20 to 25 per cent. on the water rate, under a joint board compared with the proposals contained in the Bill.
We must bear in mind the consumers' position. Representation is very important. I do not in any way wish to try to detract from the importance of the democratic principle which my hon. Friend so rightly stressed, but we must also bear in mind the consumers' interests. My hon. Friend quoted the Minister. I should like to quote the Minister back at him—the Minister in the form of counsel appearing on his behalf. Counsel said:
I would submit that, of course, the ideal of what has been called the democratic right of representation, and so on, is all very well in theory, but the person I should imagine that one should think of is the consumer.
I do not know that I should express it as strongly as that. In my opinion, we have to keep a balance. Nevertheless, it is the Minister who was saying that and I quote him back at my hon. Friend.
The Minister appears again in the question of representation. The original Bill which was sent to Select Committee provided for much more generous representation than the present Bill, but that is not the fault of the promoters. The Minister objected to this by reference to the Local Government Act and the Select Committee altered it accordingly and greatly reduced the representation of Morecambe and other authorities. Our original idea was to give almost exactly the proportion of representation which my hon. Friend mentioned—seven or eight. It was no fault of the promoters that that was changed to the present proportion.
Everything which has been said so far shows clearly that there are arguments on both sides and that these need careful examination. It is important to stress that this is not a question of principle. There have been a number of similar cases and there will be others. In many of these cases one solution is found to be right and in many others the opposite solution is found to be right. That shows that each case should be decided on its merits, and I submit that that can be done only in Committee. It cannot properly be done in a Second Reading debate.
As hon. Members will see, the Report of the Committee contains an enormous amount of evidence. Indeed, there were days and days of evidence. As the Standing Order has been suspended, I suppose that it would be possible for us to go into all that this evening, but that would take a very long time and I do not think that it is the way in which we should deal with this matter.
I am particularly conscious that there is a great deal to be said on both sides, because I represent a constituency in which there are divergent views on the subject. I had to weigh these up and decide which I thought was right. Moreover, I represented Morecambe for a number of years when I first entered the House, and it puts me in an awkward position to have to go against my friends there.
There are many arguments on both sides and these must be carefully weighed. That must be done in Committee. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the opponents of the Bill did not call evidence before the Select Committee in another place. The promoters called a great deal of evidence and, as a result, the Bill was approved and sent back to us. Surely it is only equitable, in view of that result that the promoters should be given an opportunity of calling the same evidence before a Select Committee of this House and seeing what that Committee thinks of it.
Naturally, if the opponents have evidence which they want heard on the all-important question of costs, they will have ample opportunity to produce it, and in that way both points of view will be heard. That is what we want to achieve. For this reason in particular I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and thus enable a decision to be taken in the light of all available evidence.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: Like the two hon. Members who have spoken, I have the honour to represent a Lancashire constituency and I do not think that I need apologise for intervening briefly in this short debate. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti) has a duty to perform to his constituents, and, indeed, he put forward a vigorous case on their behalf, but on looking at


the matter rationally and at a distance of some miles away in Lancashire. I am bound to say that it seems to me that this boils down to a rather unusual expression of parish pump politics in which perhaps, on other occasions, some of us would not intervene.
When we look at the whole picture of Lancashire and its water supply we find that the large towns and urban centres are adequately provided with an excellent water supply, but that in many of the rural districts there is not such a happy position. In recent months I have had occasion to meet the Minister of Housing and Local Government with representatives from my part of Lancashire on this very question. Like myself, he was concerned only to see that whatever new system of water distribution is adopted in the future it is the most efficient and most economic system which can be devised, subject to proper regard being paid to the democratic principles which the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean) mentioned.
For nearly 100 years the Corporation of Lancaster has been responsible for giving a water supply to some of the outside authorities which are now opposing the Bill. I think that that opposition to the Bill is quite unfounded. Surely any hon. Member who has a Parliamentary duty to discharge in coming down on one side or the other in a matter of this kind must realise that, if we have a successful, efficient going concern in the form of a corporation which is doing the job efficiently, it would be highly debatable to create a new synthetic authority which would require a new superstructure of technicians, engineers, bacteriologists and chemists, which would only add to the cost of the water and would not add a pint to the amount of water available in the consumers' taps. Therefore, I think it is quite irrational at this stage in the proceedings on the Bill, and after there has been the opportunity in another place to consider the merits of the Bill, for petitioners now to appear, having neglected the opportunity of putting forward those objections in another place, where the matter was fully deliberated upon, and to seek to prevent the Bill from receiving a Second Reading in this House and detailed consideration in Committee.
So far as I am concerned, while I fully acknowledge and appreciate the vigorous

case made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, which in duty bound he had to put forward, I do not think that he said anything in his speech which will convince any fair-minded Member of the House that these are sufficiently weighty reasons why the Bill should not receive a Second Reading, take its place in Committee and be dealt with in detail.
Finally, I suggest to the House that on Second Reading there is abundant evidence in the history of this water undertaking to show that the Lancaster Corporation has provided adequate, efficient and reasonably cheap supplies of water to Morecambe and these other towns. Carnforth has already agreed that Lancaster should have the Bill in any case. So far as the outlying rural districts are concerned, in this most beautiful part of Lancashire—and here let me say that many people in the south of England do not know what a beautiful county Lancashire is in some of its northern parts, and I say that as a Lancashire-born man—many of these villages do not possess an efficient water supply. I should much prefer their chances of making progress towards obtaining an efficient water supply if they were to take water from the Lancaster Corporation because of that authority's better credit in raising the capital required to make such a project feasible.
Therefore, I strongly support the Bill on Second Reading, and I hope that the objections will be overruled and that we shall allow it to go forward to the Select Committee.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It is fairly obvious to the House that my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean) and my opposition to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti) is not entirely disinterested, any more than is the support which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has given to the Motion.
I confess that I have not studied the Bill with the same care as I have the one which we shall shortly be discussing this evening, but I am bound to admit that the study I have made of it has not left me with a great conviction that this is the right solution to this problem. In fact, some of the points made by my hon.


Friend the Member for Lancaster were extremely telling, but in his arguments he left me convinced of what I already strongly suspected—that this Bill should be considered by a Select Committee of this House. The other points, on which he also raised my doubts, were points which will require more detailed argument and further evidence, more than a Second Reading debate can give.
There are certain great differences between these two Bills which we are discussing this evening, but there are also certain great points of similarity. One is that the figures which have been quoted show that bath of these are marginal cases, and that, as such, they deserve more careful consideration. As for the various points which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale put forward, Halifax cannot claim either its attraction for holiday-makers nor, indeed, the rising population in which the hon. Member appeared to take a very personal pride.
It has been suggested that these takeovers set a rather unfortunate precedent for other water undertakings which are now under consideration at various stages, both by the Ministry and the authorities concerned, but surely, so far as the principle is concerned, all political parties are agreed that as between local and central Government it is necessary to re-organise the water supplies of this country into units of what might be called optimum efficiency, covering areas not dictated primarily by administrative considerations but by nature.
As to the method by which this is to be best achieved, there is a very wide variety of opinion, dependent in part on whether we are dealing with the collection and storage of water or dealing purely with the supply, or whether, in the case of supply, we are dealing with bulk supply from one or many different authorities, and, so far as takeover is concerned, whether it is proposed to take over the production and supply of water or the mere details of what may be called the retail aspect of it.
Therefore, I do not think that any one case can be said to be exactly like any other, and from such study as I have made of the Ministry's attitude to this point I would have said that the Minister was in agreement with that since some takeovers have achieved his support and some

have aroused his opposition. In others, he has taken the rather more subtle attitude of being willing neither to support nor oppose, but the same principle has dictated his attitude. That is the principle of efficiency that has already been mentioned several times in the debate.
I therefore think that we need the facts and evidence upon which to base our judgment as to what extent various schemes fulfil the Minister's own criterion of increased efficiency, and that these detailed arguments should be considered by this House as well as in another place. I am sure that there is no reason why we should not reverse on Second Reading a decision reached in another place, although I am told that it is sixty-five years since that happened. That is no reason why we should not start this evening. There is every reason why we should not reverse such a decision without taking the same amount of trouble in considering details as was taken in another place. We cannot do this in a Second Reading debate, and therefore I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster in his plea that this House will reject the Amendment and allow the Bill to go to the Select Committee.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I certainly cannot claim to represent a Lancashire division as an excuse for intervening in this debate, although it is perfectly true that at one time I had the great honour to represent part of the City of Manchester, a city in which, contrary to the general understanding, there has been a shortage of water every other year. Be that as it may, I have listened most carefully to what has been said by the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti) and Lancaster (Sir F. Maclean), in order to carry out my duty as an ordinary back bencher, with a responsibility for listening to argument and coming to a conclusion about the papers which have been circulated.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale had an easy task, as he admitted, in putting forward the views of his constituents. The hon. Member for Lancaster had a much more difficult task, because in his own local authority there were differing views. He himself was a trifle ambivalent, because he had loyalties to his present constituency and


to a previous one. In these circumstances, I thought he put his arguments fairly and judicially, and made a very telling case for this Bill.
It is quite unnecessary to underline any of the points made by the hon. Member for Lancaster, but 1 wish to deal with one or two entirely novel anti-constitutional suggestions made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale. First, the hon. Gentleman suggested that it would make more difficult the task of the Minister in carrying out his statutory duty, and therefore one ought not to put that burden upon the Minister. To other hon. Members this must sound very odd. We spend a fair amount of our time, both in Question Time and in debate, trying to indicate to the Minister where we think he can improve on the excellent work that he and his Department do. I therefore cannot see why the hon. Member should ask us to deny this Bill the light of day and the hearing of evidence just because the Minister's task will thereby be made more difficult.
It is certainly not against the Minister's duty under the 1945 Act, which is to encourage an efficient water supply by the principle of take-overs as opposed to the principle of joint water boards. The Minister's duty is to provide an efficient and plentiful water supply. That being so, I think that the hon. Member was driven, on his first point, to rely on a very weak argument indeed.
The hon. Member then brought forward a point that seemed to me to raise a very unusual principle of representation. His theory of democracy is that unless one has a majority on any committee on which one sits one is not fairly represented. We could, of course, argue that at length in this Chamber—I am sure that there would be strong views expressed on both sides—but we know that in all these matters of representation there has to be give and take. The hon. Member himself told me the only thing I wanted to know when he said that there was the best possible relationship between his constituency and Lancaster. He had no complaints whatsoever that Lancaster had been or was likely, on any joint committee, to override any working together. I did not think that there was very much to the hon. Gentleman's second point.
It is efficiency, however, that will interest the House most. We are all anxious to see that the consumer shall have an efficient water supply at as reasonable a cost as possible. The general belief is that a take-over does not increase the cost, and that the formation of a joint water board does. It is also my belief.
I should have liked to examine these proposals in my professional capacity, if I may mention it, but it simply would not be possible here to ascertain which type of body would be the more or less costly, or to arrive at the overheads, and apportion them, and deal with the capital costs that have been incurred in the past. I do not think that it is possible for us to examine those things in this Chamber although, of course, they are matters which, after Second Reading, should be fully investigated.
Then the hon. Member said the most extraordinary thing. He said that because the petitioners had not thought fit to bring evidence before the Committee in another place in support of his argument that the alternative scheme is no more costly, the House of Commons and its Committees should be denied that evidence. That is really the most extraordinary proposition. Surely, if he believes his case to be as good as all this, he does not have to rely on these unsatisfactory arguments to prevent the case being examined carefully and slowly, with all the figures and necessary information available, by the appropriate Committee. I therefore very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that full examination can take place.

7.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): It so happens that I, also, represent a Lancashire constituency, though that is not the reason for my intervening now—Liverpool recently was itself in deep water. I understand that quite a lot of political differences are likely to find expression in London and in the provincial towns and cities today. In my experience, those political differences, though themselves hard enough to resolve, are frequently easier to resolve than are some of the more intractable differences one finds between local authorities.
I think that I can fairly say that no hon. Member who has spoken in this discussion has quarrelled with the need to group water undertakings into more efficient units. Certainly, no hon. Member has queried the area to be covered by one unit in the Lancaster-Morecambe area. Indeed, the regrouping proposed in the Bill was recommended by the Minister's engineer who carried out a survey of this part of Lancashire.
The real cleavage of opinion here arises, I understand, solely over the constitution of the body that is to be responsible for water. The promoters of the Bill argue that the Lancaster Corporation should be responsible although, of course, they would admit some representation from other local authorities in the area. The opponents of the Bill would prefer that the management of the new undertaking should be in the hands of a joint board.
My right hon. Friend's primary responsibility is quite clear. It is
to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources and the provision of water supplies in England and Wales and to secure the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national policy relating to water.
The House will see that, in the broadest sense, my right hon. Friend's responsibility is discharged when regrouping produces a new undertaking, whatever its farm, that is capable of discharging the duties now falling on the various suppliers of water in this part of Lancashire. But, of course, the form taken by the undertaking may be a matter of very great importance, as it clearly is here, and on this I should like to say a word or two which. perhaps, applies not only within the context of this Bill but of that which the House will later be discussing.
I start by saying that there is no rigid pattern for the organisation of the bodies managing these undertakings, and there is no reason why there should be. As hon. Members know, towns very often supply nearby districts, and those adjoining districts have no representation at all on the water committee of the authority running the undertaking. Normally, these arrangements work perfectly well. Again, about one-fifth of the country's water is provided by private water companies, on which the local authorities, as such, are not represented.
It might be of same help if I were to give the House two types of case we very commonly come across in regrouping. The first is where there is one good undertaking—and whether it be a local authority or a company does not really matter—which is absorbing a small area adjoining it. There, as a general rule, we find that the best method of taking in the new area is to extend the present undertaking's limits of supply, even though it means that the local authority whose area is being added will have no automatic means of expressing its interest in the management of the water supplies. There is nothing necessarily wrong in that. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) that it is not always possible to improvise perfect methods of representation in this class of case.
Then there are cases where new undertakings have been farmed by the amalgamation of a number of local authority undertakings, all of which may be more or less of the same size. Very often, there is not one large undertaker with what one might call a ready-made organisation to take over the management of the new area. There is no single authority whose undertaking is being amalgamated with the others which, of itself, is sufficiently outstanding to be the new undertaking. Very often in this sort of case the right answer appears to be the creation of a joint board.
That being said, of course, there are bound to be cases in the process of amalgamation which are either near the line or which are, at any rate, very arguable, as, indeed, is the case of Lancaster and Morecambe. My right hon. Friend's general views on these contentious cases were set out in the circular issued last year in which he said:
The Minister will not normally feel able to support proposals for a take-over unless the initiating authority's statutory area of supply is appreciably more in population or rateable value than 50 per cent. of the proposed enlarged area.
He went on to say that
If this condition is not fulfilled, he considers that in order to provide for adequate representation of the added areas, regrouping should generally take the form of a joint board.


Applying that rule to the Lancaster Corporation Bill, we find that, while Lancaster at present supplies in detail—I emphasise the words "in detail"—about 56 per cent. of the resident population of the proposed new area as a whole, though I agree that it supplies pretty well the whole of the area in bulk, the area which it supplies in detail represents only 46 per cent. of the rateable value of the whole proposed new area.
My right hon. Friend takes the view that it is right that regard should be had not only to population but also to financial resources because, of course, the finances of the new undertaking must depend ultimately on the rateable value of the area which the undertaking covers.
Applying these tests, it seems to us that a fairly clear balance of argument here lies in favour of a joint board for the new Lancaster water area and that a joint board would be a more appropriate

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[7.54 p.m.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Batsford, Brian
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Ross, William


Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Skeffington, A. M.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H (Accrington)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Browns, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Bryan, P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Cole, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Corfield, F. V.
Mason, Roy
Viant, S. P.


Currie, G. B. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wall, Patrick


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Nicolson, N. (B'n'mith, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wigg, George


Diamond, John
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Frederick


Drayson, G. B.
Page, R. G.
Winterbottom, Richard


Finlay, Graeme
Parker, J.



Gibson-Watt, D.
Partridge, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, J. B.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan and


Gough, C. F. H.
Pott, H. P.
Mr. J. T. Price.


Hayman, F. H.
Redmayne, M.





NOES


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Medllcott, Sir Frank



Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Mr. Houghton and


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Mr. Gresham Cooke.


Green, A.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

instrument than a take-over. As the House knows, that was the view of my right hon. Friend expressed at an earlier stage, and he still stands by it. I want to make that perfectly clear. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is room for more than one point of view on the Bill. The sense of the House may well be that these matters may very properly be thrashed out in detail by a Committee of the House.

Accordingly, the advice which my right hon. Friend wishes to offer to the House is that the Bill ought to be allowed to go to Committee to be thoroughly examined. This, I think, would accord with the general sense of the House on both sides, and I trust that that counsel will be accepted.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided:Ayes 52, joint board would be a more appropriate Noes 20.

Orders of the Day — HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I do not wish to detain the House very long, but I should like to say a few words about Clause 32, which deals with school agreements. Another stage has been reached in the history of this rather controversial type of agreement in recent weeks, in particular by the remarks of the Minister in his report on this Bill. I have no wish to oppose the Bill, but I should like to make a few points so that they may be brought to the notice of the Select Committee which will deal with the Bill in due course.
The Education Act, 1944, laid a duty on all local education authorities to provide secondary school education suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. Since 1944, there have been three Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, but in none of them does there appear anything about school life agreements. In 1954, the Central Advisory Council on Education reported after two years' study of the question of early leaving from secondary schools and came to the conclusion that there were so many diverse factors operating to cause early leaving that it did not feel able to recommend the general adoption of school life agreements.
On 26th January, 1956, the Minister concurred in this view in the House and said that he had no intention of taking general powers. In his report on this Bill, the present Minister said that he has, however, no positive evidence that agreements of the kind to which the Clause relates are of much effect in helping to implement this policy. Later, he said that there can be no compulsion on any parent or guardian to enter into such an agreement, and that refusal to do so would not affect the obligation of the corporation to provide the pupil with education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude.
I feel grateful that the Minister has seen fit to go so far as that, because

it seems to me that there was a possibility, under the school agreements Clause, that a child, whose parent might, for conscientious or valid reasons of one kind or another refuse to sign such an agreement, would then be deprived of secondary education
suitable to his age, ability and aptitude
which were proved by the fact that he had passed the selection test
I therefore hope that the Committee which will deal with the Bill will give careful consideration to the remarks of the Minister, because this Clause provides an open date at which it will come into operation. If it is possible and it is decided to accept it I hope that the Committee will see whether it is possible to incorporate in the Bill some words that will clearly provide that no child can be deprived of a grammar school education because the parent feels unable to sign a school life agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move,
That it he an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Parts II, III and IV.
Parts II, III and IV relate to the proposals for a take-over of the water undertakings of six local authorities around Halifax, five of which are in my constituency, and to incorporate them into the water undertaking of the Halifax Corporation.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), who I have no doubt will oppose this Motion, has already given himself a trial run on the previous Bill. I thought for a moment that he was about to drag in the Halifax Corporation Bill by the shirt, but I was very happy when he changed his mind and attacked the Minister instead.
This Motion, as the House fully realises, is not one which will prevent the Bill having a Second Reading, because that has already taken place. There are many things in the Bill which are not the subject of dispute now, nor is there any dispute about the regrouping of the water undertakings. The point at issue is the form of control of the regrouped water undertakings. The House has already heard during the discussion on the Lancaster


Corporation Bill about the choice of two kinds of authority which can be made when water undertakings are being regrouped. One is the joint board and the other the take-over.
As I have said, the take-over in this case means absorbing the water undertakings of six small authorities into an enlarged undertaking of the Halifax County Borough Council. A joint board would mean transferring all the water undertakings, including that of Halifax, to a new authority, namely, a joint water board. It seems to me that in deciding which it should be it is desirable to follow some fairly clear principles and to lay down some fairly definite criteria if different decisions in similar conditions are to be avoided.
The Minister recognised this when he issued circulars giving guidance to local authorities and others concerned in which he revealed his own mind in the matter. Only a few moments ago the Parliamentary Secretary read one of the material paragraphs in the Minister's circular setting out some of the criteria which he thinks should govern the decision as to whether there should he a take-over or a joint board.
In applying the test of one of them to this case, we must look at the percentage of the enlarged water undertaking which the population of those being absorbed will bear to 50 per cent. The Minister said that the initiating authority's statutory area of supply should be appreciably more in population or rateable value than 50 per cent. of the proposed enlarged area if a take-over was to be justified. In this case, the statutory area of supply is not appreciably more, either in population or in rateable value, than 50 per cent, of the proposed enlarged area.
If we take the basis least favourable to the objecting authorities, we find that comparing the existing area of detailed supply of Halifax Corporation, which includes two small parts of Brighouse Borough as well as the County Borough area, the Halifax County Borough would have 51·41 per cent. of population and 55·64 per cent. of rateable value. If we take the basis which the Minister is understood to have laid down, the Halifax County Borough would have 49·17 per cent. of the population and 54·36 per cent. of rateable value. It

seems difficult to believe that anyone could regard 51½ per cent. or even 55½ per cent, as appreciably more than 50 per cent. The Minister in his statement to the Select Committee in another place expressed the view that in this ease the criteria justifying a take-over did not exist and his view was that there should be a joint board.
Since the Select Committee in another place found the Preamble to be proven, it either thought that these percentages were appreciably more than 50 per cent. or it did not care whether they were or not. If the Select Committee in another place, in its wisdom, was of opinion that 51½ per cent. or 55½ per cent. was appreciably more than 50 per cent., it seems desirable that we should find a better word than "appreciably" more to express our meaning. If, on the other hand, the Select Committee in another place simply took no notice of the Minister, this House should make it clear where it stands. The Instruction would do that. It would be an instruction to the Committee to delete those Parts of the Bill which relate to the proposed take-over of the water undertakings.
What do we in this House think about this? We have the Minister's circular laying down his view in the matter. Do we agree with him or do we not, or do we not care? Are we sure that the Minister knows his own mind? I thought from the earlier part of his speech that he did not, but towards the end he came down firmly in line with the statement made by his representative to the Select Committee in another place.
In giving evidence to the Select Committee in another place, however, the Minister's representative said that Halifax was a borderline case. That was a juicy morsel for counsel representing the Halifax Corporation and he picked it up and worried it to death. He suggested to the Minister's representative that if it was a borderline case, it might fall this side of the line or that; if it fell that side of the line, perhaps it should be a joint board and if it fell the other side of the line, it would be a take-over. Would it really matter? Is it not almost a toss-up when it is a borderline case? I am glad to say that in his evidence to the Select Committee in another place, the Minister's representative stuck to his guns and maintained the Minister's steadfast answer that it was still a case for a joint board.
In considering which it should be, borderline case or otherwise, it is clear that the merits of the matter should receive full consideration, and they did. The question of efficiency, an important principle of reaching agreed arrangements as far as possible and the question of representation are all very important when considering the merits of the matter. The Minister said that there was no inherent difference in efficiency between a joint board and a take-over.
All admit that the water undertaking of the Halifax Corporation is efficient. It seems to be one of the features of the big boys who want to take over that they plead how efficient they are and how much better they can do it than anybody else and that that seems to be a good reason for leaving the undertaking in their hands. Other people, however, can run water undertakings and those who have had experience on a smaller scale are entitled to bring their experience to bear on running the enlarged water undertaking.
In addition to efficiency, there is also the question of cost, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) had something to say a few minutes ago. Thank goodness, we are not run by chartered accountants. Of all the dehydrated professions that one can think of, that surely is it. We have to look at this matter in terms of human desires and the realisation of desires for democratic participation in the running of the nation's affairs, large and small. Although the passion of local patriotism may not burn in the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, it certainly burns in mine. I do not see any reason to be ashamed of it.
People go round the country exchanging greetings and opinions on who is winning at football or cricket. Why not extend those feelings of local patriotism to questions of whether we run our own water undertaking or have a say in the running of it if somebody else runs it? Therefore, I dismiss my hon. Friend and his petty considerations of cost in a matter which must be considered from a much broader angle.
Happily, however, in this case, the difference in cost between a take-over and a joint board is much smaller than in the case of the Lancaster Bill. I quote now from the Statement by the Minister's

representative to the Select Committee in another place:
The Minister's general view on this is that the question of cost is a very speculative one. There is room for a very great deal of dispute as to the items that should be brought into the account, the scale of staffing that would be required …
and so on.
The Minister's representative concluded:
And, as I have said, the Minister does not regard costs as the decisive argument in the light of these other overriding grounds for preferring the joint board arrangement wherever possible for local authority amalgamation.
I agree with the Minister, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite will be getting up to disagree with him. Things have come to a pretty pass in the House when it falls to me to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. What has happened to his supporters? Anyway, I am quite prepared to support him in this matter.
The next important principle is the voluntary principle and the desirability of agreed arrangements. Now then, hon. Members opposite, who is in favour of voluntary arrangements and who in favour of compulsion from the other side of the House? Let us hear. The Minister's representative said:
On the question of choice between the two forms of organisation, the Minister does attach great importance in all this regrouping to what the Minister himself has called the voluntary principle, to agreement as far as possible among the authorities concerned. The precedents for a take-over of one authority by another in recent orders, as far as I know, are all agreed orders except for the Bilston order which has already been referred to. There have been since the regrouping circular quite a large number of orders for a take-over by a large authority, but they have all been agreed take-overs.
I do not want to stir up any bad blood between Halifax and the local authorities in my constituency, but I suggest to the Halifax Corporation that we ought to see more of the spirit of co-operation and a little less of the spirit of compulsion.
I do not want to make my criticisms too severe. [Interruption.] I do not remember having taken lunch with Halifax Corporation. Let us consider the way in which this has been done. Under the Water Act, 1945, the Minister has power to confirm orders for the regrouping of water undertakings. The Halifax Corporation, if it receives the


agreement of the local authorities, could put forward a scheme to the Minister for his confirmation. But the Corporation, knowing the Minister's mind on this matter and knowing that what it proposed would not meet with his approval, decided on the course of a Private Bill. It should be stated also that the Halifax Corporation seemed to be so anxious to preserve the independent existence of its undertaking at all costs that it broke off negotiations with the local authorities in my constituency as soon as it became apparent that the status quo could not be justified. When it learned of the Minister's reactions it preferred to force the issue by means of this Bill.
Halifax is the big brother to the smaller authorities in my area, but it is a big brother whose actions reveal more strength than affection. I do not want to rake up old sores but last time a Halifax Corporation Bill came before the House for Second Reading, on 22nd February, 1949, it proposed the compulsory take-over of Hardcastle Crags, one of the beauty spots in my constituency. When the Bill came before the House, Sowerby had no Member here. Mr. John Belcher had gone and the present Member for Sowerby had not then arrived. I give notice that no Bill from Halifax will have a formal Reading as long as I am here if it affects adversely my constituents.
When the Bill went to the Select Committee of another place, it contained in Clause 31 a proposal that the smaller authorities should have ten seats out of twenty-six on the water committee of the Halifax Corporation. Apparently, this was found to be contrary to Section 85 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which requires that on committees appointed thereunder no less than two-thirds shall be members of the parent control. The Minister apparently regarded it as undesirable that there should be any departure from this principle. Therefore, in the Bill as proposed by the Halifax Corporation ten seats out of twenty-six on the water committee were to be given to the authorities whose water undertakings were to be absorbed. The Lord Chairman, however, decided—it must be admitted quite fairly—despite the objections of the Halifax Corporation, that that provision must be deleted from the Bill and it is not there now.
The Bill was amended by increasing the total membership of the water committee to thirty, of whom the Corporation is to appoint twenty and the six local authorities ten. That worsens the voice of the local authorities, whose undertakings are to be absorbed, on the water committee of the Halifax Corporation. I should have thought that that alone would have caused the Corporation to reconsider its position. When its own proposals, which it stoutly defended before the Select Committee, were modified by the Lord Chairman and worsened from the point of view of the local authorities, surely the Corporation should have reconsidered the matter and its members should have said, "If we are forbidden to continue to offer this more liberal representation on our water committee, then we must reconsider our position, because we do not wish to do you any harm." I think that if the representation proposed earlier in the Bill cannot now be granted under a take-over, there is all the more reason for a joint board.
Finally, it may be argued that, as Halifax has been the principal water undertaking in the area for 100 years, and apparently antiquity comes into it now, and having done the job well, it is presumptuous of the smaller authorities to want to join in. I do not take that view. There is no reason why Halifax should hesitate to hand over its undertaking to a joint board, on which it will have the dominant voice and upon which its officials will have control, and so get an agreed scheme which will leave no sense of grievance behind.
I notice that when it came to the final submissions to the Select Committee in another place counsel on behalf of the Halifax Corporation said:
It is cleat that the real objection of the local authorities is a matter of pride. I do not want to belittle them. It would be a pity if that sense of pride was absent. But sometimes pride has to be pocketed in order that the greater good can he achieved.
Has anyone ever heard such impudence? Who is this man to run down local pride and tell people that they must pocket their pride for the general good? It has not been shown in the evidence there, nor will it be shown in the speech we shall hear shortly, that the public will be better served by the takeover than by a joint board. That is why I ask the House to be firm about this


and not to be wishy-washy. All the evidence has been given and this debate was known to be coming on. All the evidence has been available to hon. Members to read so that they could inform their minds of the details.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: May I ask a question? The hon. Gentleman says that all the evidence has been given. It has been given in another place and their Lordships have sent the Bill to us with certain recommendations. Therefore, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the evidence having been heard, we have now got a Bill which he is opposing after the evidence has been heard.

Mr. Houghton: That is a pertinent point to which I will come in a moment. I think we ought to send this part of the Bill back to the Halifax Corporation to reconsider it and have further discussion with those concerned. There is no urgency. The taps are still running in Halifax. Moreover, they are still dripping in Halifax. If there were not so many taps dripping throughout Britain today, there would not be half the problem over water that there is. Allow me to point out that most of the water is gathered in my constituency anyway. The beauty spots and the moors of my constituency are the gathering ground for water supplies for all and sundry, such as Batley and Morley and Wakefield. When the Minister went up to open the new reservoir of the Borough of Wakefield, I was present. It was a nice, bright, windy day. The Minister cast his eyes over it and said, "This is much better than Hampstead. I wish I represented a constituency like this." The only thing that is preventing the Minister representing my constituency is that he would not get in.
I do not think the House can be indifferent to the problems which are now arising, and will continue to arise, between various local authorities because of the confusion which now seems to exist as to what are the firm criteria upon which these questions should be judged. I think that a compulsory take-over can be justified only if the public interest clearly demands that the much bigger undertaking should absorb the smaller. There should be no bullying among equals, and here, in rateable value and in population, they are as near equal as makes no matter. Regrouping by con-

sent should be the order of the day unless the smaller authorities are clearly shown to be needlessly obstructive and too small to play a major part in the new controlling authority.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) has asked, and other hon. Members asked in connection with the Lancaster Corporation Bill, why should not this Bill go to a Committee of this House for examination and report? After all, it has been before a Select Committee of another place. They may have got it all wrong. Probably they were not listening or they could not do their arithmetic. Some of us think they gave the wrong answer. All right, This House has a Committee of its own which can consider the Bill and come to a contrary opinion, if it is so minded. That is a fair point of view, but we should not send more Bills to Committees on this question until this House is clearer in its own policy on the matter. I do not think that any further compulsory take-overs should pass through this House, even to a Committee, before we have laid down some firmer doctrine and removed some of the confusions existing at present in the minds of everyone as to what should govern what will be a long and continuing, not to say contentious, process of regrouping our water supplies.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Hayman: I beg to second the Motion.
I had intended to do so only formally, but some remarks have passed which seem to me to call for a short comment. The first is that the Lord Chairman in another place has vastly more powers than are accorded to the Chairman of Opposed Bill Committees in this place. I, for one, think sometimes that he has taken very arbitrary decisions, and I hope this House will never reach the position where it will merely say "ditto" to what may happen in another place.
My second point arises out of what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said about counsel for the promoters in another place in relation to small authorities. I would remind the House that two years ago the small local authority where I happen to live, and which I have the honour to represent, dared to present a petition against a


Clause in the British Transport Commission Bill. The senior counsel for the promoters said it seemed to him like David fighting Goliath. I am happy to say that David won.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In rising to ask the House to reject the Motion and to allow the Bill to go complete to the Select Committee, I must express my great admiration for the fervour and wit with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has put his points. I wish I could extend that admiration to his accuracy on matters of fact. There was the greatest distortion of the preliminaries that I have ever heard; so much so that I regret I have not got with me the details of what happened, because it never occurred to me that any attempt would be made to raise this issue. However, as far as I recollect, it was one of the other authorities which broke off negotiations, and a somewhat sudden end came when the Halifax Corporation was about to consider the matter more carefully with other authorities and it found that objection had been taken to the whole idea.

Mr. John Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on this point. It was not until January, 1958, that Halifax showed any signs of not wanting to go on with the negotiations, when it peremptorily and unilaterally closed them down.

Mr. Macmillan: That is not what I understood and, if anything, it reinforces the point that these matters can be better dealt with by counsel producing evidence and records before a Committee.
One other point on the matter of accuracy is that the hon. Gentleman said that we should recommend that the Committee should not consider Parts II, III and IV on the ground that these concern the take-over by Halifax of the water undertakings of the other corporations. As a matter of fact, if we reject Part IV we shall also reject certain considerations which apply to Halifax as well as to the joint undertaking. The hon. Gentleman should have suggested that we reject Clauses 27 and 30 of Part IV, which are the only ones directly concerned in the take-over, because

Clauses 28, 29 and 31 are concerned with the general question of the Halifax water undertaking.
Many arguments have been rehearsed as to the merits of take-overs and joint boards, and I could almost wish that there was another by-election due at Sowerby Bridge so that this Bill should not be opposed. However, the hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment so charmingly that it would be hardly possible for me to entertain this wish.
The proposals contained in these three parts of the Halifax Corporation Bill are the best method of running this particular water undertaking. I do not intend to rest our whole objection to this Motion on that, but rather to argue, as has already been done, that these are matters which should go to Committee. I think that the objections of the hon. Gentleman are quite valid in some ways, but they are arguable in any case. His fears about representations are less valid in practice than they would appear to be in theory, and some of his fears are quite useless.
I do not think it is possible to discuss the merits of what even the Minister, who was not in favour of this take-over Bill, admitted to be a marginal case. As there is no point of principle involved the House should not seek to prevent the Committee exercising its proper function.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go into great detail about the merits of the Bill. Although there is no time limit on this debate, if I did that we could go on almost indefinitely. I should like to take up one point that the hon. Gentleman made when he referred to percentages. His argument indicated that the Minister was opposed to take-overs unless the percentage was appreciably more than 50 per cent. That is not what the Minister said. He said he would not normally support it—and I stress those words. I further suggest that the Minister's words that this is a marginal case destroy the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
There is no other point of disagreement in this debate except between take-over by the Halifax water undertaking and the establishment of a joint board. This is not a case of "big brother" engulfing some smaller or weaker authorities. Far from it. It is a case of the two producers of water in the area, the authorities which own the reservoirs and have


developed the capital expenditure to produce the water, Todmorden and Halifax, which now deal with what might be called the wholesale side of water supply, being in agreement. If one takes the two together they have in population 61 per cent., and in rateable value 65 per cent. These two producing and wholesale distributing authorities are seeking to increase the efficiency of their supplies by extending their services to the retail side of the provision of water which they do not now cover.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the Minister as saying that a joint board would be the only satisfactory solution and suggesting that it was the only method of getting agreement; I suggest, in return, that though he may be very willing, we are not. He may say we should not try to compel these other authorities; but I suggest to him that he is trying to compel Halifax. A voluntary agreement in which only one side volunteers is a curious arrangement indeed.
I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). It is remarkable and rather touching to find hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House seeking to protect the Minister in the exercise of his function, and saying that this Bill will make it so difficult for him to do his task. I am sure that the Minister wishes he could claim such protection from both sides of the House in other cases. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should support the Minister simply because, in another place, the support was not quite so great.
I have said that this is a marginal case. The hon. Gentleman made great point of an agreement, if I may quote another case, on Tynemouth. The Minister was not willing to give any support to the joint board in the case of Tynemouith, and with a population of 54 per cent. in the area and rateable value of 61 per cent., the take-over is going forward.
I understand that the Minister has refused to press for a joint board for Barnsley, although the population proportion is only 47 per cent. of the total and the rateable value 54 per cent. It is true that in the case of Barnsley five urban districts have agreed to the takeover, as opposed to three districts which do not agree. That gives what might be called an agreement factor expressed in terms of rateable value of 75 per cent.

in the case of Barnsley and 65 per cent. in the case of Halifax. I suggest that that difference of 10 per cent. is just that sort of marginal difference which is more properly considered by a Committee.
I am not quite sure whether the Halifax Corporation is being praised or blamed for seeking to give the other authorities greater representation on the committee than it would be permitted to do under the 1933 Act. I think that the Halifax offer was an earnest of the corporation's intention to consider the interests of all authorities and ratepayers and not to engulf them and squash them down by an overriding majority. I am bound to admit that there has been no complaint about the bulk supply of water from the other authorities taking water.
A further point was that as a committee of the Halifax Council this committee would be subordinate to the council. A joint board has members appointed by the council and, therefore, in some sense is subordinate to whichever council appoints the majority of that joint board. The hon. Member said that the representation of the other authorities on the committee would be inadequate, but Halifax is bound to have a majority representation on the joint board, unless the hon. Member is proposing a thoroughly undemocratic solution.
Therefore, the control of either organisation, if that is what he is worried about, if either case would be in the hands of Halifax councillors. There is only the slight difference that under the joint board arrangement the members would not be elected by the ratepayers or consumers of water, but would be nominated by the members of a council. At least, it can be argued that it is more democratic to have a waiter undertaking controlled by a committee directly elected by the people it is seeking to serve rather than at one remove.
I agree that the need for considering this question in greater detail in the somewhat calmer atmosphere of a Select Committee would make it harder for the hon. Member to regard the supply of water as a sort of game with the same sort of local patriotism which cheers on a football team by waving a rattle, which is not appropriate to the more serious matter of supplying water to meet the needs of consumers. I am surprised that


someone whom I have always regarded as a serious Member should have taken this rather frivolous attitude.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member is now pouring cold water on me.

Mr. Macmillan: Despite the contentions from the benches below, I have not yet mentioned the word "drip".
One advantage of the Bill which I do not want to over-stress is that of continuity. The hon. Member taunted us for believing that a supply going on for one hundred years was efficient. Certainly, it can be argued that an authority which has been supplying water for one hundred years must, by definition, have provided a great deal of the money and capital involved. There is no doubt as to the technical efficiency of both the bulk and detailed supply by the Halifax Corporation.
Although those are separate for the purposes of our argument this evening, the water is not separate and the flow is continuous. Even a joint board would have to rely to a great extent on the experience and knowledge gained by Halifax, and, that being so, that experience and knowledge can be more efficiently given under the continuity of keeping the machine already in existence.
One of the normal tests which the Minister must apply in making up his mind on these matters, as he has said, relates to the question of the capital development of the resources involved. It is true to say that of the capital investment already made in these water undertakings 89 per cent. comes from Halifax and Todmorden and the rest from other places. I appreciate the point. Already, the Halifax Corporation is bearing 78 per cent. of the annual operating cost of the whole undertaking and I suggest, therefore, that on its merits there is much to be said for allowing it to make that small extension.
I will not go into details about the question of operative costs. I have here a lot of tables, and if it is argued that the evidence given before the Committee in another place was not correct or that wrong conclusions were drawn from it, again I suggest that it would be better to make these arguments before a Select Committee of this House. I found the

somewhat casual attitude of the hon. Gentleman towards the cost of these undertakings a little surprising. Perhaps if it were not the Halifax ratepayers who are chiefly involved he might have been a little more careful in what he said.
There has been a great deal said about comparisons between these various undertakings and I admit that this House should establish a criterion as between a take-over and a joint board. I have anticipated the hon. Gentleman's argument in this respect and have worked out some sort of principle. But while one may argue that there are occasions when a take-over would definitely be appropriate and other cases in which a joint board would definitely be the best solution, there are many other instances where the considerations are such that it would be impossible to come to a definite conclusion as a matter of principle. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that it is the duty of this House to make up its mind in such a way before sending the Bill to a Select Committee.
For example, there are the cases of Nottingham, Bolton, Brighton, Warrington, St. Helens and Wolverhampton, which are among those I could quote where the take-over authority has between 82 per cent. and 96 per cent. of the population of the whole area and between 85 per cent. and 94 per cent. of the rateable value. These are obvious candidates for the take-overs which have happened, or are happening. At the other end of the scale, there are Wakefield, Doncaster and Lincoln, where the boroughs have only 31 per cent. to 46 per cent. of the population and between 41 per cent. and 59 per cent. of the total rateable value.
Taking as a marginal figure the rateable value proportion of, say, between 50 per cent. and 65 per cent., we find it slightly harder to come to a conclusion. Swindon, for example, with a population and rateable value of 62 per cent. of the whole area supplies only about 50 per cent. of the water and in that case perhaps it is better that there should be a joint board. I do not know and neither do they, because negotiations have come to an end and I understand that the Minister is making inquiries. Doncaster has a population of 49 per cent. and a rateable value of 59 per cent. and they are


supplying only about 50 per cent. of the water.
It is more certain that with Tynemouth, with a population of 54 per cent. and rateable value of 61 per cent., there should be a take-over, and a take-over has been agreed, although they supply only 75 per cent, of the water. Barnsley, for which I have quoted the other figures, supplies 100 per cent. of the water and has 86 per cent. of the capital investment. Halifax with 52 per cent. of the population—with Todmorden it has 61 per cent.—has a 56 per cent. of the rateable value, and with Todmorden supplies 100 per cent. of the water.

Mr. J. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of comparisons with Todmorden and has said that Todmorden agrees. This I believe to be wrong. The fact that Todmorden is not spending money opposing the Bill is not, I am sure, to be taken as an indication that it approves.

Mr. Macmillan: May I read out a letter, a copy of which I have here, written by the town clerk of Todmorden to the town clerk of Halifax. It states:
I now write to formally confirm that at their last meeting the council resolved: 'That Todmorden accept the terms offered by Halifax Corporation and agree to a merger of the Todmorden Undertaking with that of Halifax.'
I think that that it is a quite definite indication that Todmorden agrees. That letter was dated last December. Again, I am not going into this in greater detail except to make one other comparison. The percentage is 35 per cent. in the case of Halifax and 25 per cent. in the case of Barnsley—again a very marginal difference.
I have tried to show that both the parts of the Bill which it is suggested the Committee should be instructed to leave out and the objection so far made contain no points of principle. I have tried to show that the Halifax proposals are sound and. at the very worst, sound enough to be discussed in greater detail with greater evidence than we can obtain now. Since a point of principle is not involved, no one can deploy the full arguments, although I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has many more which he would like to deploy.
I am happy to know that the Minister agrees that so far as Lancaster is con-

cerned, and I hope that his agreement will extend to Halifax. I do not think that it is right to ask the House to prevent one particular Bill from reaching the Committee simply to establish, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, a rather doubtful point of principle, that it was up to this House or to the few hon. Members now here, to make up their minds about water policy in general so that the Committee might have proper directions to consider the Bill. When this course was adopted for the Leeds Corporation Bill all the points which the Committee was instructed to remove were small points in which the principle came in and were a very small proportion of the total Bill and not a large part of it, as in this case.
This was argued in great detail before the Committee in another place. It took four days and a great deal of expert evidence. We are now being asked, in effect, to reverse that decision without being able to consider that evidence. I would remind the House that even if this goes complete to a Committee and the Committee agrees with the decision in another place, there is still the Report and Third Reading, on which these objections can be made after the evidence and not before the evidence.
In seeking to prevent those parts of the Bill being considered by the Committee I am sure that those supporting the Motion are asking a little too much of the House and I suggest that before the House reverses the decision arrived at in another place—and I should be the last to say that it has no right or duty to do so—it should at least consider the evidence and listen to the arguments put forward there. Tonight we should decide to allow the Committee to consider these three parts of the Bill together with the rest, and I therefore ask the House to reject the Motion.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who has grown in the estimation and friendship which we all have for him, said at least one thing which I think is shared by the whole House. He said that it is a good thing—in fact, I think he said "Thank heavens"—that chartered accountants do not govern us. That is a sentiment to which I heartily subscribe. I would only add that so far as I am aware chartered


accountants do not seek to govern us. What they seek to do is to extract and collect accurate information and put it before any committee which wishes to consider it and be guided in coming to a proper conclusion.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) brought much warmth to this discussion. No one could be left in any doubt as to his loyalty to his constituency or to the Minister, which are entirely proper feelings but which do not help us very considerably in deciding on the merits of the argument being discussed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby referred to those who favour voluntary agreement and those who favour compulsory agreement, but it is difficult to think of an agreement which is not voluntary. We always want agreement to be reached in a co-operative way. Where there are differences of opinion, what does my hon. Friend and every other Member of the Labour Party or of a trade union do? Such people accept the view of the majority. Where the opinion of the majority is against theirs, they have always accepted the majority view, knowing that it is open to all of us, on rare occasions, to be wrong.
The effective majority in this case, in terms of any criterion which could be applied, rests with Halifax. Therefore, I say that if agreement cannot be reached individually it is right that Halifax should exercise its proper powers, after approval, to take over other local authorities in order to extend its area and to continue its long history as an efficient water supplier.
In reply to my hon. Friend who asks, "Who is for voluntary agreement and who is for compulsory agreement?" I would ask, "Who is for democracy?" I would ask him to examine what has just happened. This House has just given an unopposed Second Reading to this Bill. We are now discussing a Motion which seeks to leave out of the Bill Parts II, III and IV.
For the benefit of any hon. Member who has not read the Bill from beginning to end—I do not suppose there is any such Member—I would point out that the remainder of the Bill does not regulate water at all. My hon. Friend does not

seek to leave out Part I, which is the interpretation Clause, or those parts of the Bill which follow Parts II, III and IV, and which deal with such important matters as the sale of briquettes—a matter in which the President of the Board of Trade is extremely interested—

Mr. Roy Mason: In dropping bricks, not selling them.

Mr. Diamond: —library books and restrictions on the use of the borough's armorial bearings. These are important matters; but we are discussing the water undertaking.
In face of a unanimous Second Reading by the House, my hon. Friend is proposing to extract the whole body of this Bill from the view of the Committee and to make it impossible for the Committee to look at the Bill as a whole. What would come before the Committee would have virtually nothing to do with what we have been discussing on Second Reading. That is a proposition which does not meet with much support in the House. I believe that there has recently been a Standing Committee dealing with night baking, where this question of amending a Bill so as to alter what had been approved of on Second Reading was considered. It is within the knowledge of the House what happened to that Bill.
I had to read up a considerable amount of history and I became interested in a debate between Mr. Asquith and Mr. Bonar Law as to the appropriateness of this proceeding on a Bill dealing with women's suffrage. The principle goes far back into history and precedent. That is why we could not possibly, having given an unopposed Second Reading to the Bill, approve sending it to the Committee for its next stage to discuss the essential parts of the Bill, having removed every important Clause from it before it got to the Committee.
We recently considered another Bill. I would say to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir F. MacLean) that the Bill which we are now considering has an even stronger case. All criteria that the Minister proposed—not the laws of the Medes and Persians—are satisfied much more fully in the case of this Bill than m the case of the previous Bill. On the previous Bill, certain evidence was not heard by the Committee in another place,


but in the case of this Bill all the evidence was heard fully and at length by the Committee in another place. The Committee, having heard all the evidence, rejected the view of the petitioner. In those circumstances it is improper, constitutionally and in a democracy, that the Committee which should examine the Bill now should not have the opportunity of examining the whole Bill.
I am glad to know that my hon. Friend is such a loyal supporter of the Minister. I hope that he will support the Minister loyally when the Parliamentary Secretary, having agreed to what he said previously on a Bill which did not satisfy his own Minister's criteria to anything like the same extent, says that on this occasion the Motion must be rejected.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I do not intend to keep the House for very long, but, having been a member of the Select Committee for over nine months and having attended thirty-three sessions on four water Bills, I think it fair to the House to give my opinion on some of the remarks which have been made tonight.
In the case of Bills coming before this House in the first instance, the Committee meets upstairs, considers the petitions, the Bill and the Preamble, hears evidence brought before it and subsequently gives a decision. Then the Bill comes before this House and normally goes through on the nod. It goes to another place which examines the Bill there.
The reverse has been the case here. The Bill has gone to the other place first where all the evidence of the witnesses was heard. The witnesses were examined and cross-examined and their Lordships came to the conclusion that the Halifax Corporation Bill should come here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on the excellent attempt he made to put a good case for his constituents, but the fact is that in the mind of the Minister, and in the minds of successive Ministers, water has been a very big problem for this country. Amalgamations have to take place. When we think of the enormous problem of the water undertakings we on the Committee dealing with those four water Bills had to consider, I can only say that this is a very trifling matter.
In a matter which is important to the small local authorities represented by the hon. Member for Sowerby it is vital that these questions should be considered and witnesses called and the whole matter tested. It would be wrong for this House tonight by this Motion to turn down the opportunity of hon. Members of this House in Committee to test the arguments for and against. I should not have intervened but for the fact—I say this with great respect and in a humble way—that. having spent many hours on many Bills of this character in the last eight years, the evidence having been heard elsewhere and the decision having been come to, it would be wrong for us to turn down the Bill on a Motion of this kind on a question of such importance to the constituents of the hon. Member.
Therefore, I strongly support the rejection of the Motion on the ground that a Committee of this House should rehear all the evidence and come to its own conclusion and then report to us. If the hon. Member for Sowerby feels that that report is wrong he can raise it, as he will have a second opportunity; out, if this House did not allow a matter of this importance to the hon. Member's constituents and to those of Halifax to be considered by a Committee of this House, this House would not be doing its duty to the people of this country.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: The doctrine that because another place has passed the Bill, then we in this House should surrender our rights, discard our responsibilities and give the Bill an automatic Second Reading is a doctrine which I find highly repugnant. If any hon. Member thinks that something wrong has been done m another place, or if he thinks that the interests of his constituents are seriously prejudiced, he has not only the right but also the duty to use the procedure of the House.
Having said that, let me say at once to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) that if the matter were as he described it, I should not seriously quarrel with him. Generally speaking, the issues which arise on Private Bills are better handled in Committee, where evidence is produced. I have a constituency interest in the matter in that the Borough of Brighouse, which, I am


proud to say, is part of my constituency —and which probably has one of the best brass bands in Yorkshire, something which Halifax does not possess—and therefore have a duty to represent the views of the borough.
I am, however, the more willing to advance this case because I am satisfied that serious matters of principle arise. I do not need to tell the House that I have been interested in water supply problems ever since I arrived here, and, indeed, ever since I entered public life. There have been occasions when I have been in the position of the Parliamentary Secretary, advising the House in these matters.
Why, then, am I primarily against what has been done in another place? It is because if Bills like this continue to be brought forward it will make complete nonsense of our present water policy, it will make orderly progress in regrouping undertakings impossible and it will break faith with those very many water undertakers who have loyally worked on the lines of the Minister's circular on policy.
If I were in the Minister's place I should be very upset, because I should see that I was being put in the position in which the views which I had expressed to many people throughout the country on a policy which had been loyally adopted by many water undertakers would be completely undermined by this kind of take-over procedure. If, therefore, I ask that the matter should be held up and that Halifax should think again, it is because I believe not merely that the will of the Minister is being thwarted but that the will of the House is also being thwarted.
On 22nd May, 1957, we had an extremely interesting debate in the House on water supply. The Parliamentary Secretary replied for the Government and I was then privileged to make a speech on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The first thing which was perfectly plain was that the Government wanted voluntary processes wherever possible. I quote from the hon. Member's speech as reported in c. 1287 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
My right hon. Friend has made it plain that he prefers to see this process of regrouping carried through on a voluntary basis by the undertakers themselves, and that, although he has compulsory powers under the 1945

Act, it is his hope that he will need to invoke those powers only when regrouping is desirable and cannot be achieved by any other method.
He went on to say:
That, I think, would accord with the general sentiment and feeling of the House.
We agreed with him at the time, and nobody raised a voice against it.
The second thing was that we talked a good deal about the way in which this should be done, and again I quote from the hon. Gentleman in respect of the setting up of joint boards. The Parliamentary Secretary then said:
I recognise, as, indeed, did my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, that many of the small local authorities are reluctant to lose any of their existing functions, and some of them are, quite naturally perhaps, a little suspicious of the regrouping policy. I should like to emphasise that we have no intention of silencing the voices of these smaller local authorities, because my right hon. Friend is looking mainly to the setting up of joint boards of local authorities, so that the connection of these small local authorities with a joint board may be maintained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 1286.]
We all agreed, and when the Minister sat down, he expressed his pleasure in the fact that the House had endorsed the general water policy of the Government.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman realises this point, but may I put it to him? He has read out a report of what the Minister's view is. Does he realise that if these Clauses are not taken out of the Bill, the Minister will, in fact, send a report to the Committee upstairs on these very Clauses. Therefore, the Committee considering the Clauses will be in a position to have the up-to-date opinion of the Minister when considering the matter. On the other hand, if these Clauses do not go to the Committee, because the House decides not to let them go, the Minister will not be in a position to give his latest view of the matter.

Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree that the situation is as the hon. Gentleman has described it. My reason for wanting the matter debated tonight is because, in view of that earlier debate, it is not only a matter for the Minister but a matter for the House. It is a matter for all of us who took part in that debate. It is a matter for all of us who said, as I did, that the law needed to be changed, and that if the Labour Party came into power, we should want to do something much


more radical, but that, within the existing law, this was the way to proceed. No one on that occasion on either side of the House disagreed. In fact, we said to the Minister "Go to it, and do it as quickly as you can" It is that programme which, to my mind, is being thwarted by these take-over methods which I want to stop.

Mr. Diamond: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to say how he reconciles that with what he has just read out? He read out the view of the Minister that his policy was that mainly the approach would be by way of joint boards rather than take-over. Is my right hon. Friend really saying that in no circumstances whatever should a Committee of this House have the opportunity of considering the arguments in favour of a take-over?

Mr. Edwards: No, of course, not; I was saying nothing of the kind. I would not be so foolish. What I am saying is that if there is a policy which has been endorsed by the whole House, I do not want to see it undermined.
May I show how I think this is inconsistent with what we all wanted when we last debated the point? First of all, on the matter of voluntary arrangements, following the circular sent out in September. 1956, all the local authorities concerned got together and unanimously decided that they would like to maintain the status quo. This included Halifax. There was in existence a joint committee of takers of bulk supplies, which as far as I know, had worked very well, and, incidentally, had the result that something like 50 per cent, of the capital required by the undertaking was being provided from outside Halifax. Halifax subsequently laid down certain not unreasonable conditions. They said that full reasons must be given and full information must be obtained from the authorities, and positive proposals must be submitted for remedying any defect.
Work proceeded on these lines. It was not until January, 1958, when a good deal of this inquiry was still in hand, that Halifax changed its mind, as I am advised, unilaterally—without any discussion—and there have not been any discussions between Halifax and these authorities since. The other authorities have been talking to one another, and it was they who, in the end, after very full

meetings, decided to seek an Order under the 1945 Act to create a joint water board.
My great complaint, therefore, is that no attempt has been made by the Borough of Halifax to come to terms with all the other parties, and that one of the things on which we were certainly agreed in our debate in the House has been prevented, not because of a failure to reach agreement but because there has not been any attempt to reach agreement.
There are certain narrower grounds on which the joint board is to be preferred to the take-over. First of all, if there is a take-over, the control of the undertaking will be the sole responsibility of the Borough of Halifax, and the ratepayers of Halifax can regard their interests as paramount at the expense of the general body of water consumers over the whole area.
Moreover, I am somewhat worried about the disposal of any surpluses that may arise in the accounts. As far as I can see, if there is a joint board there is no risk. Otherwise, I understand that the Borough of Halifax has power to take water surpluses for the relief of rates. They certainly can do so in respect of distribution surpluses. Whether they can do so in respect of bulk supply surpluses—of which there is a fair sum. I think—I do not know, but my constituency is certainly interested in this.
It is a serious point and, frankly, we have not much confidence that the Borough of Halifax will behave in such a way as to give equitable treatment throughout the area. For years, the Borough of Brighouse was fighting the Borough of Halifax about a surcharge on the inhabitants of Southowram. The same water mains were being used for adjacent streets, but the Borough of Halifax was surcharging the people who happened to be in the Borough of Brighouse. Those people were paying a higher rate than were the others, although the conditions of supply were exactly the same. It was not until Brighouse went to the Minister, who issued an Order in 1953, that the Borough of Halifax was made to behave in a reasonable manner.
For all these reasons I very much hope that a new attempt can be made in the area to reach some common agreement. That would be much better for the local


authorities concerned. They have to live with one another in the years ahead and if, in this work, the Borough of Halifax gets its will it is bound to leave a legacy of bad blood that will not be in anybody's interest. That is why I support the idea that these particular parts of the Bill should be withdrawn, and I do so in the very great hope that it will give the local authorities concerned a chance to think again.

9.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I should like to intervene very shortly. I have already addressed the House on the Lancaster Bill, and I do not propose to weary hon. Members with a repetition of what I then said. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who made a very good, rumbustious Conservative speech, thought that the earlier part of what I said on the Lancaster Bill betrayed the fact that my right hon. Friend did not quite know his own mind. I have never known a Minister of the Crown to whom that criticism was less applicable. The usual criticism is that my right hon. Friend knows his mind only too well.
There is one consideration which has just been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) to which I ought to refer at once. He said—I understand his point of view, of course, without giving it my full sympathy—that if he were in the position of the Minister he would be unhappy, notwithstanding the processes for which the Government are responsible in amalgamation, at the prospect of certain local authorities coming before Parliament with Private Bills which included proposals for water take-overs. That is a point of view which is perfectly understandable, but I very much doubt whether Parliament would agree to take steps, in any circumstances, to frustrate local authorities from having access to this House either in matters of this kind or in others.
If I may say so, I think that there is the severely practical point to be borne in mind here that a local authority which wishes to embark on a take-over will not promote a Bill in Parliament unless the authority itself feels that it has a reasonably good case. Of course, it may have

an exaggerated idea of the merits of its case. If that proves to be so, the probability is that the Bill will be reported against by my right hon. Friend in Committee. As a general rule, however, I think it is fair to say that the cases will be either marginal or near-marginal, and I see no essential reason why they should not be considered by the normal processes of the House. I say that while perfectly well understanding what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), as one would expect from him, supported the Bill in a cogently argued speech. He wishes the Halifax Corporation to take over the whole of the new water area and to manage it through the water committee of the Halifax Corporation on which the existing water undertakings in the area would be given representation. In this, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the Halifax Corporation has the support of the Todmorden Borough Council. But, of course, it is opposed, as was made clear by the hon. Member for Sowerby and his right hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough by all the other undertakings in the area, all of which are local authorities.
Perhaps I should make clear that, with the exception of Todmorden, each of these authorities receives its water in bulk from Halifax and depends almost entirely upon it. Todmorden has its own sources of water and also a bulk supply from Rochdale.
The hon. Member for Sowerby put the case against the take-over and in favour of a joint board on a number of grounds. First of all, he said that it would be unfair to give the authorities outside Halifax only one-third representation on the Halifax water committee. He told the House of what occurred in the report of my right hon. Friend in a Committee in another place. It is perfectly true that to give representation, by co-option of outside local authorities, to the tune of more than one-third is contrary to one of the Sections of the Local Government Act, 1933.
The view of my right hon. Friend is that it would be wholly undesirable to breach the principle contained in the 1933 Act. It would run contrary to the spirit of democracy, and, of course, to the extent that it is true that the


representation allowed for in the Bill as it stands is only one-third, that is, I agree, as was implied by the hon. Gentleman, an argument in favour of a joint hoard on the ground that one cannot otherwise secure adequate representation of the other local authorities.
There is the important consideration which has been mentioned by some of the local authorities opposing the Halifax Bill that the water committee, however composed, would be subordinate to the Halifax Town Council on which the other local authorities would have no representation. The town council could agree or disagree with the decisions of its water committee. After all, the committee would remain a committee of the Halifax Council and the Halifax Council in turn would retain control over the committee's powers, for example, to raise money or to levy water rates.
I mention those considerations because they are important from the point of view of the other local authorities, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax recognises. I agree that there is some force in these arguments. but, having said that, I still think that it is true to say that if the conclusion, in spite of those considerations, should be that there is an overwhelming case for a takeover then those objections, important though they are, should not be treated by the House as decisive.
On the other hand, my hon. Friend said that the Halifax undertaking is an efficient one, which is true, and that a joint board would be probably more expensive and perhaps no more efficient than administration by Halifax alone. The Halifax undertaking is a good one and it may well be true that a joint board would be rather more costly. I do not propose to get inveigled into an argument about that matter: it would be like an argument between direct labour and competitive tendering. Whatever the truth of that, it may be a quite small price to pay for maintaining good relations between neighbouring local authorities in the Halifax area. It is an important argument, but not a decisive argument against a joint board.
My right hon. Friend has examined this case in the light of the rule embodied in his circular of last July. I am informed that at present Halifax supplies 52 per cent.—the hon. Member for Sowerby said

51·4 per cent., and we will not quarrel about that—of the proposed new water area by population and 56 per cent.—the hon. Gentleman's figure was slightly below that—by rateable value. As has been said, Todmorden supports the Halifax Bill, and if the figures for Todmorden are added to those of Halifax the percentage rises to about 61 and 65 per cent.
I want to be perfectly fair about this. Todmorden is not the initiating authority, and strictly within the context of the circular one is not entitled to look at it in that way. Therefore, I do not make very much of it. On the other hand, where there is agreement between two local authorities it has to be given consideration of some sort, no matter what the circular may say.
Looking at these figures, my right hon. Friend felt that the case was very nicely balanced as between a takeover and a joint board. On a very careful weighing of these niceties, his judgment was to express himself in support of a joint board. He said as much in his report to Parliament on the Halifax Bill, but at the same time he explained that he regarded this case as a very borderline one. I freely concede, and here I am fulfilling the expectation of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), that arguments can very readily be used one way or the other. I am sure that both my hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have contributed to the discussion would not disagree with me.

Mr. J. Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman playing down what was said in the Minister's report? Let me quote from the report. After all the arguments are set forth it reads:
In these circumstances the Minister regards a joint board as the only satisfactory form of administration for the proposed new undertaking and feels bound to recommend the rejection of Parts II, III and IV of the Bill.
The words
the only satisfactory form of administration
are fairly strong and do not admit of much qualification.

Mr. Bevins: The right hon. Gentleman is probably taking note of the use of the expression, a "very borderline case". That is, perhaps, putting it rather too finely. I reiterate, however, that my


hon. Friend supported a joint board. He said so, even though he added that it was a borderline case. Perhaps we can leave it at that.
In all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend feels that in this case, also, the proper place for all the arguments to be deployed and examined is before a Select Committee of this House. I very much hope, therefore, that the Instruction will not be pressed and that the House will allow the Bill to go forward.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — FOOD STANDARDS (ICE CREAM)

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Labelling of Food (Amendment) Regulations, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 471), dated 19th March, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this and the other three Motions on the Order Paper in the names of Members of the Opposition, relate to ice cream. If it suits the convenience of hon. Members, on both sides, they can be taken together.

Mr. Wiley: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that that course will commend itself to the House.
The Regulations are concerned with a matter of some importance. We have only to realise that 100 million gallons of ice cream are consumed annually. We are now eating three times as much ice cream as we were before the war. Before I deal with the Regulations themselves, however, I would say by way of preface that I have some sympathy with the Minister. This is a question that was raised several times in the House and I am satisfied that the Minister has given it serious consideration and made a genuine effort to reach a compromise in the controversy between the Milk Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Unions and, on the other side, the Ice Cream Alliance and the Wholesale Ice Cream Federation.
To put it shortly, the case of the Milk Marketing Board is that the Regulations will allow ice cream to be sold without any cream content and, indeed, without any milk, whereas before the war ice

cream was a genuine dairy product. What the Milk Marketing Board has been pressing for has been that the designation "ice cream" should be confined to the genuine dairy produce, and that when a substitute ice cream contains vegetable oil it should be known by some other name.
If we consider the Milk Marketing Board's case, we must admit that we are the only English-speaking country which allows this substitute to be sold as ice cream. Again, if we consider the Board's case, we must agree that generally speaking, the powers should know what they are buying. This is a matter that I have raised previously in the House concerning foodstuffs.
Against those claims, the Minister has struck a compromise. He has designated dairy ice cream as being the ice cream containing milk. That is a compromise which he has reached after a good deal of thought, but it is a compromise which has been rejected by both Milk Marketing Boards and the National Farmers' Unions. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, because although I have been referring to ice cream as a substitute, it is a substitute which reaches adequate nutritional standards. The Food Standards Committee itself declares that:
The difference in food value between vegetable fat and butter fat is very small indeed.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The food value in this context means, of course, the calorific value and it does not include protective substances which are essential to health.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but I would ask him in future to give me notice of such questions. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be adequately briefed to reply.
The second point I make in favour of the Minister is that this substitute has been known as "ice cream" for fifteen years, but although I recognise that this dilemma is not of the Minister's own making the blame for it rests on the Government's shoulders. In 1950, the Food Standards Committee, when it recommended an interim standard, said:
In the long term the description ice cream' should be restricted to a dairy product containing a high proportion of milk-solids.


This has not been done and the blame for it must be accepted as being that of the present Government. They are the achiteots of their own dilemma.
It was because the Government had not done anything that the Food Standards Committee, when it reported in 1957, recognised that the substitute ice cream had been known as "ice cream" for a considerable time and had been accepted by the public. But although the blame cannot fail to fall upon the Government's shoulders, I accept the position that at present the Minister can call in aid the Food Standards Committee, the enforcement authorities with, I believe, one exception, and, I assume, the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, which, I notice, has been consulted and, I assume, has accepted the present Regulations.
As far as one can gather, the public, at any rate, accept the present ice cream and the manufacturers have some case that they have installed plant to meet this increased demand and at the time they were installing that plant this apathetic Government did nothing about standards. Therefore, I concede that the Minister was facing a dilemma. But there are two factors, which have not been sufficiently argued, that make the Regulations regrettable. The first is one in relation to which there is again a considerable measure of blame upon the Government.
We have to recognise that during the term of office of the present Government the consumption of fresh milk has fallen. This is very deplorable. The consumption of full-price fresh milk has fallen by 4½ per cent. overall and the per capita consumption has fallen by far more. should have thought that, quite apart from the considerations which I have mentioned, the Government would have recognised that ice cream is a good medium for the encouragement of milk consumption. We talk about our own consumption being three times what it was before the war, but we must recognise that in the United States it is far higher, and the people of the United States enjoy real ice cream. One of the mediums for the consumption of milk in the United States is ice cream. I should have thought that for that very good reason the Government would have been reluctant not to encourage the full use of ice cream as a means of milk consumption.
The other factor is not unimportant, either. It is that the butter fat which went into ice-cream came largely from New Zealand. Now, the Government have been in considerable difficulties with New Zealand about the imports of butter and properly took steps to aid the New Zealanders. Here again, I should have thought that that was a good reason for the Government seriously looking at the question of ice cream and recognising that this would have been a factor which would have helped the Government in their difficulties with New Zealand.
Apart from those broad considerations, I have some points to raise about the Regulations, of which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is well aware because they have been raised with him by the Milk Marketing Board. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reply to some of the points of criticism which have been raised about the Regulations.
The first is that the wrapper will state that the substitute contains vegetable fat. I wonder why it was not possible to meet the Board and to put it the other way round by stating that it contains no cream or milk fat. Again, with regard to the size of the letters of the warning notice, if I may so describe it, I am surprised that the Government have not been able to accept the Board's case. I agree that they moved a little way about the size of the lettering, but I should have thought that on this matter it would have been possible to meet the Board's argument that more attention should be drawn to the fact, because here we are doing something which is inherently objectionable.
We cannot avoid this conclusion. We are allowing a substitute to be sold as the genuine article. That being so, if we say that there are reasons which justify it in this case, we should go out of our way to ensure that as far as possible public attention is called to it. Again, I can see there are practical difficulties, but I wish the hon. Gentleman would explain to the House why he was not able to meet the case of the Milk Marketing Board on ice cream mixes and cones and wafers sold without wrappers.
My main objection to the Regulations is not so much on these points, but on the question of the standards. This is


deplorable. We are not only having a substitute foisted on us as the genuine article because the Government have been dilatory over the past few years. That is bad enough in itself, but we have the Food Standards Committee asking as long ago as 1950 that the standards should be progressively improved, without the Government doing anything about it.
Why can we not say now that whether we have substitute ice cream or not, it will be of a better nutritional standard than it is now. This view was taken as long ago as 1950, and we have the position obtaining today that some organisations such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, are making representations to the Government and saying that the present standards are not nearly adequate.
Why can we not say that we are not so short of materials now as we were immediately after the war, and that in any case the standards for ice cream will be progressively improved? There may be technical difficulties about this. If there are, it is the Government, by their dilatory action, who have allowed these difficulties to arise. If they had only said, a few years ago, that they intended to improve standards, these difficulties could have been avoided.
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman was in a dilemma. I complain not against him, but against the Government, who have created their own dilemma. I recognise that the various bodies that the Minister has consulted support him in his present action, but I regret that the opportunity was not ambitiously taken to promote milk consumption. In spite of some of the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman there are objections still outstanding to the Regulations themselves. The main objection is that no real effort has been made to improve the standards.
It is for these reasons that I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that, having laid these Regulations, he will nevertheless keep them under review and will keep in consultation with the bodies which have advised him. Also, that he will keep in consultation with the producers' organisations and assure the House that if necessary, in the light of such a review, the present Regulations will be revised.

9.51 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to second the Motion.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates the importance of our discussion. The figure of 100 million gallons of ice cream a year for Great Britain is a very large one, but it is likely to grow, particularly if the quality of the product is improved. If we were able to persuade the Government to improve the standard as soon as possible naturally people would want more of this most attractive food. Not only is it attractive but it is valuable to the health of the community.
This is not a new product. Marco Polo brought a recipe for ice cream back from the Far East. Certainly there is mention of it in the literature of the ancient Roman Empire and there are a number of recipes for making ice cream in eighteenth century cookery books. Today we are in a situation where the supply of milk, particularly in spring and early summer when a flush of milk occurs, is great. This would be an opportunity to use the same techniques as are used in America where most of the milk used in making ice cream comes in during the spring and early summer months. At that time of the year the milk is most valuable from the health point of view because it contains appreciable amounts of vitamin D which is necessary for the prevention of rickets.
Although the Parliamentary Secretary is no longer in the Ministry of Health, he will be interested to know that among our children, and certainly among the poorest section of the population, the consumption of codliver oil, which is the main supply of this protective substance, has fallen dramatically during recent years. That is a serious matter which brings with it the danger that rickets may appear again among children.
If we were able to supply at reasonable prices ice cream guaranteed to be made from milk and cream, and it reached the population in large quantities, I cannot imagine that children would refuse it. In that way they would get the type of protection that codliver oil was designed to give.
I am told that in the United States of America some 2,000 million quarts a year are consumed, but if that figure is compared with that given by my hon.


Friend, it will be seen that average consumption in America is not much greater than ours, for 100 million gallons is 400 million quarts and we are only 50 million people against roughly 200 million people, so that we consume eight quarts per person per year as against ten quarts per person per year.
One would obviously like to see that figure increased. I am not giving these facts or stating these opinions because I have to placate the farmers in my constituency, because I am not sure whether I have a farmer in my constituency. A few years ago, when I last inquired, I found that there was one in my constituency. I am making this case quite sincerely because I believe that dairy produce, cream, butter, milk and eggs, are medically the most valuable and important part of the food taken up by the general public. Anything which can be done to encourage an increased take-up of those foods by the community is bound to be good for us all.
I hope that I am not boring the House with figures, but this is interesting. I tried to discover the value of one serving of ice cream, about two-thirds of a small cup.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend explain quite clearly what he means by ice cream, because we have ice cream, milk ice, cream ice, and Kosher ice?

Dr. Stross: I mean real ice cream, that is dairy ice cream, the type common in America because they allow no other. We shall obviously have to teach everyone to ask for dairy ice cream and my hon. Friend has complained that that should be necessary. I shall have something to say about that later. It is an obligation which we should not have to impose on the population.
One serving of ordinary vanilla dairy ice cream, about two-thirds of a cup, would give about half as much protein and calcium as would be found in half a pint of milk. That means as much protein as would be found in one egg, or half the amount of calcium needed for one's daily requirements. That shows how valuable a food ice cream can be. In addition, it would give about one-fifth of another protective substance, with whose name I Shall not trouble the House because these words tend to get misspelt, but which is an important protective sub-

stance of the vitamin B variety, and nearly as much vitamin A, a most important vitamin to health, as is obtained from half a pint of milk.
That is enough to show that what we are discussing is a matter of preventive medicine and therefore of very great importance. In view of the amount of this valuable foodstuff which is consumed by the public, it is worth spending a little time discussing the iniquities of the Government in this matter.
In Section 47 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, we read about cream substitutes. I remember this Section very well, because it was not so worded in the original draft of the Measure. I raised the subject when we discussed the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" when the right hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said that he would withdraw and redraft the Clause. As it now stands, the Section refers to the misuse of the designation "cream" in relation to cream substitutes. It refers to imitation cream as being
…a substance which, not being cream or reconstituted cream, resembles cream in appearance and is produced by emulsifying edible oils or fats with water…
If we speak of such cream as imitation cream, why cannot we label this substitute material as imitation ice cream and leave it at that? If we divided it into ice cream and imitation ice cream everyone would know what to ask for. As it is, the Ministry of Food asks the public to be able to distinguish between dairy ice cream which is good ice cream, milk ice cream which is an inferior ice cream containing milk fats and solids, and this imitation stuff which is also called ice cream but will have words on the label stating that the fats are from vegetable sources. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can say why he did not have recourse to this simple method of getting out of what is truly a dilemma.
There are two reasons why the Parliamentary Secretary comes to impose legal standards of the kind mentioned in these Regulations. I have already said how valuable is ice cream as a food and it is also fair to say that there is another Statutory Instrument, not mentioned tonight, which has reference to heat treatment and will completely guarantee, so


far as science can, that this food will remain safe to eat and will not be polluted by organisms. If there are organisms, they will be killed by pasteurisation or sterilisation, and we are glad that these steps have been taken. There is no medium we know which will grow pathogenic bacteria quicker than ice cream.
I am glad to say that this good ice cream is always available to us in the House of Commons where no other kind is sold, and I have here details of the ingredients and how it can be made. For nine gallons or 100 lb. of mix the Milk Marketing Board suggests this recipe. One gallon 4½ pints of cream; 6 gallons 3 pints of milk; 5 lb. 4 oz. of separated milk powder; 13 lb. of sugar and 8 oz. of gelatine. This will provide something which is much better even than the standard ice cream. There will be, not 5 per cent. of butter fat but 10 per cent.; not 7½ per cent. of serum solids but 11·5 per cent.; and 13 per cent. of sugar and 35 per cent. of total solids.
The cost of manufacture would seem to be a little less than 6s. a gallon, and so it is possible to get delectable ice cream at reasonable prices unless too high a profit is demanded. I hope that will not happen because it is important that this sort of ice cream should be as popular as possible.
In addition to cream and sugar and such other things, air is also added. Why is there no control over how much air is added to puff up the ice cream and make it smoother and more desirable? Such a regulation exists in America. It is done by establishing what should be the minimum weight of a gallon of ice cream. I am advised that almost any amount of air can be introduced into the ice cream. There must be some air, which is called over-run, and the amount varies from 30 per cent. to 100 per cent. I am advised that an amount of 70 per cent. is thought desirable by the Milk Marketing Board. If there were no air at all in the ice cream it would appear heavy and solid and would not be very pleasant to digest. If there were 100 per cent. over-run, it might result in the customer paying a good deal for air which should be free, as it is in garages. The Parliamentary Secretary may have some reasons that he could tell us why he did not include such a provision

in the Regulations. We complain that the standards are too low. As my hon. Friend has said, it is 5 per cent. for butter fats in dairy ice cream whereas in the United States the average varies from 8 per cent. to 14 or 15 per cent.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the standards laid down here are much lower than the standards he talked about in the cookery book of the eighteenth century and even in Marco Polo's ice cream?

Dr. Stross: I can only give my personal opinion on that, because analysts in those days were not so accurate as they are now. I am certain that the standards then were very high except for cleanliness, but however good the ice cream was then, I would not have eaten it under any circumstances, because there were no pasteurisation or sterilisation processes.
Why cannot the standards be higher? It is almost certain that the Milk Marketing Board would prefer them to be higher and would encourage and advise all manufacturers to make them higher and look upon that as absolute minimal. By these standards it is not as good a food as it should he. It is not nutritious. If the standards were higher, I would be prepared to campaign for ice cream being supplied to children in the schools instead of milk. Then we should have no complaints from the children. It might be a very interesting project so long as we could guarantee its absolute purity. I am sure they would like it in summer, and knowing what rascals young children are, they would eat it every day in winter, too.
We are left with this situation. The Government say caveat emptor. They say that the public must find out what they are buying and if they buy the wrong thing because they do not give the right name and say only "ice cream", it is their own fault because they should have asked for "dairy ice cream". I do not think that is very fair. I think that there could be a better way to have done this. The Regulations as they stand open the door to the provision of a safe food. They give some encouragement to the dairy industry which we should like to encourage as much as possible. But we are left with the fact that those of us who have anything to do with public life must act as propagandists in encouraging and


teaching people what to ask for, and in demanding from the manufacturers that the minimal standards, which I think are too low, should be increased by them voluntarily. We must urge the Government as quickly as possible to raise the standards at least to those which are prevalent in the United States.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Despite the rather cold ice bricks that have been thrown at the Government's head in this little debate tonight, I think that we ought to congratulate the Minister and his hon. Friend on making a workmanlike effort to find a compromise in this extremely difficult question of the labelling and standard of ice cream.
My only interest in this matter is that having been brought up in the engineering industry, where standards are precise, I am extremely shocked to say that the nearer one gets to the public the more imprecise the standards and specifications are. It seems to me that matters are running away with themselves in a number of directions.
Only the other day, on the topic of champagne grown by the French for hundreds of years in a certain part of their country to a precise standard, where the word "champagne" means what the word "Rolls-Royce" means to us, one found a rather slushy sparkling wine grown in Spain also bearing the name" champagne". I could walk down the road and buy what I might think the best Cheddar cheese, until I note underneath the name, the words, printed in very small letters, "Made in Holland".
The farmers and the Milk Marketing Board are right to urge that ice cream should be made of the genuine products of milk fat. After all, the expression "ice cream" has been far too loosely used for twenty years. It applies to all sorts of products made of vegetable fat, whale oil and other things. We ought to aim at the expression "ice cream" becoming once again applied only to creams made out of dairy fat. We have to recognise that there are large companies that have specialised in this market and have made ice cream very palatable and very popular. Naturally, they cannot go the whole way with that aim. I hope, however, that those large companies, who are really responsible people, will, over the years, agree to a

tightening up of the regulations on standards, labels, and so on.
Consumer research has shown that the public do not know what they are buying at all. I do not think that they know what ice cream is made of. I was given only today examples of the sort of confusion that even now, under these Regulations, can exist. The description cream ice" must refer to something that contains milk fat. On the other hand, if somebody advertises "Wilson's ice cream" it need not contain any milk fat. On the contrary, it might consist partly of milk fat and partly of vegetable oil, or have no milk fat at all. "Dairy ice cream" must be all milk fat and so must "dairy cream ice." Take the case of a company advertising on its label, "Milkmaid Cream Products Company, Limited. Super ice cream." That, again, does not have to contain any milk fat. So there is obviously a case for tightening up the Regulations as we go along.
I wanted to ask the same question as has been asked from the other side of the House. What is the position about ice cream sold in cones and wafers? There is a case for bringing that under control, also. The manufacturer could put the name of his company in very large letters. It might be, "Dairy Cream Products, Limited and although the words" containing vegetable oil "are on the wrapper, the name of the company could be advertised in such a big way as to take away the effect of the words "vegetable oil." I hope that responsible companies who make such products will look at all this labelling in a proper fashion so as not to deceive the public.
I congratulate the Minister upon bringing forward these Regulations. We ought to keep a jealous eye on these things, review them from time to time in the light of experience and perhaps, after two or three years, tighten them up.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) sits down, may I ask whether his point would be met if, instead of the words "contains non-milk fat", the reading were "manufactured from the same ingredients as soap"?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke)


seemed to be very confused. At first, he congratulated the Minister on having done so workmanlike a job and then for the rest of his speech he proceeded to criticise the Minister. In paragraph 6 (3) of the Statutory Instrument No. 572, we read:
Where a person sells any food to a purchaser in response to a request for ice-cream or for a composite article of food containing ice-cream he shall be deemed to sell ice-cream or, as the case may be, a composite article of food containing ice-cream unless he clearly notifies the purchaser at the time of sale that the food is not or, as the case may be, the composite article of food does not contain ice-cream.
What it all means I really must admit I cannot follow. Surely, here the Minister is trying to cover up the fact that he has surrendered to the big interests which have been selling their products under the name "ice cream" for many years when, in fact, milk cream as we have always known it has been absent. The Minister has missed a great opportunity of giving great stimulus to the farming industry, to which, after all, we pay enormous sums every year—about £250 million. With milk production increasing, perhaps by retaining the simple name "ice cream" for milk fat ice cream he could have given a stimulus to the production and sale of milk.
I must admit that I cannot visualise any person who goes to buy an ice cream being aware whether he gets real ice cream or one of the substitutes provided by one of the huge organisations of manufacturers. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, they have quite efficient machinery at their disposal. I understand that they also have very great financial resources at their disposal. It seems that they could quite well have adapted their methods to have dealt with milk, as produced in Cornwall in very fine style and great quantity, and used that product instead of going overseas to buy vegetable products.
I am sorry that the Minister has surrendered to those interests and not benefited the agricultural industry which he represents in this House.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mathew: As one who has consistently and persistently badgered my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon.

Friend the Minister on this matter, I should like to add my welcome to these Regulations. I certainly shall not follow the rather ungenerous remarks of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). I should add that milk is not only produced in Cornwall. I understand that the main product of the West Country is Devonshire cream.

Mr. Hayman: Cornish cream.

Mr. Mathew: In any event, there is no doubt that these Regulations will be warmly welcomed by producers, and indeed, by the British public.

Mr. Willey: Surely the hon. Member knows that the Milk Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Unions have protested against them.

Mr. Mathew: I was talking about the producers, not the producers' organisations. The protests to which the hon. Member referred are limited protests.
I was about to explain that my welcome to the Regulations is limited to the extent that I very much regret that the Minister has not seen fit to go the whole way, because this misnomer—and it is a misnomer—of selling vegetable fat cold ice or animal fat cold ice arose as a result of war-time restrictions and has continued. The manufacture has been refined over the years until a very pleasantly tasting product has been produced. I have no doubt that the average purchaser of ice cream today believes that he is eating dairy produce when he is eating nothing of the sort.
I hope that in due course it will be possible to go the whole hog and to see that the words "ice cream" mean what they say. I cannot follow the comparison which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made with Spanish champagne, because persons who are fortunate enough to be able to buy champagne see who the shippers and the growers are and can tell the difference between the Spanish and the French names. When we buy ice cream it ought to be what it says—ice cream.
The fact that the Regulation on labelling is restricted to prepacked ices seems to me unfortunate, because there is much sale, in public places from barrows and at agricultural shows, for example, of both the cornets to which my hon. Friend referred and also our old friend the ice


cream slide, of which most of us were very fond when children. Is it not possible to cover these cases by having a notice displayed at the point of sale, on the barrow or the tub, or wherever the ice is sold? This would make clear what was the nature of the product which the public were buying.
In general, however, I welcome these Regulations and thank my lion. Friend for them I feel that in future the public will be less misled than in the past. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that during the last year the large manufacturers of ices have experimented by introducing ice cream containing a proportion, sometimes 100 per cent., of dairy products, with great commercial success. I have no doubt that once the public know that there is a difference between the dairy product and the product made of vegetable or animal fat they will opt for the better product, even if it is rather more expensive.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I welcome the Regulations. As a Member for a Devon constituency I am as interested as any other Member in seeing that as much use as possible is made of the milk and cream products for which Devon is well known. Nevertheless, I always describe politics as the art of the possible, and I certainly do not think that we can steamroller through something just because we think it is right. For instance, I have tried to convince my four-year-old daughter that it is better for her to have a dairy ice cream when she prefers an ice lolly. She insists upon having an ice lolly, arid all the propaganda which I put to her telling her that the dairy product will do her far more good cuts no ice with her at all, and she finishes up with an ice lolly, which has no nutritional value but Gives her a certain amount of satisfaction. That is one of the things which we must recognise.
There are a number of large organisations in the country—I do not want to advertise them—which sell ice cream purely upon the name of the product. If we laid down in Regulations that it must be stated on each wrapper that the product contains vegetable fat but no milk fat: whatever, the average member of the general public would still not notice those words on the wrapper. They are buying

the products of Messrs. Walls, El Dorado or Lyons on their labels, because these organisations have built up a name for their products, and people are willing to pay for the name.
It is important to remember that each of these large organisations has also developed a line which incorporates dairy products in their ice cream. They advertise that these lines contain pure dairy fat, milk products and so on, and these lines are the subject of advertising campaigns, in the cinemas or wherever it may be, in which particular attention is drawn to the fact that they have on sale a genuine dairy Product at a slightly higher price than the normal vegetable fat article.
I believe that that is the right line to adopt. We in this House hope that we shall soon reach a point in which the sales of ice cream will cover a very large proportion of diary products, but to insist in regulations that these organisations should use only dairy products is asking for trouble.

Mr. Hayman: Surely, we are not asking them to change their methods? All we are asking is that, when they say they are selling ice cream, they will in fact be selling proper milk ice cream.

Mr. Mawby: That, of course, is a proper point which should be raised, but, after all, we have to remember that these organisations have not been able, through circumstances beyond their control over a long number of years, to incorporate dairy products into their ice cream. Throughout the war and during the period of the Socialist Government, they were either not allowed or did not have the opportunity to introduce into their products those ingredients which we should normally expect them to contain. Therefore, they had to make certain that in selling their products they were maintaining the name. In maintaining their name, they would naturally never go in for vegetable fat and that sort of thing until after a great deal of research, in order to make certain that the value of their name would be maintained, where the consumer is concerned. Therefore, these organisations went into the vegetable fat market only because conditions which were beyond their control forced them into it.
All I am saying is that, now that dairy products are available, we hope that these large organisations, which are actively engaged in an extensive advertising campaign on I.T.V., in the cinemas and so on, should incorporate milk fat in developing their products. I should have thought that these organisations were doing their job in trying to make certain that they can convince the general public that dairy ice cream is the best buy. After all, they have to convince the normal purchaser, just as I have to convince my youngster, that it is in his

or her own interest to buy the better product.
I think the right hon. Gentleman has gone the right way about it by making certain that those retailing dairy ice cream include a certain proportion of dairy products in their article. As I say, for many years the manufacturers have not been able to obtain the dairy product but, now that it is available, they are doing all they can to convince the public that it is the better product. The Regulations are in line with what we want to achieve.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I can give these Regulations but a half-hearted welcome, although it would be churlish not to say that they represent a real advance on the present position. I appreciate that there may be historical, practical and commercial reasons that make it not possible to go as far as many of us would like, but I hope that the Minister, if only to cultivate a climate in the industry, will indicate quite clearly that these Regulations are regarded by his Ministry as merely a step towards establishing very much more stringent and specific standards for the milk content of products sold as ice cream.
It seems somewhat anomalous that those in this industry should be able to conform to standards much more lax than those relating to the sale of cream buns—or, for that matter, to the sale of cream of milk. I should like to see the manufacturers and retailers of dairy ice cream placed in the same position as other persons who choose to market products with the designation "cream." I should also have been happier had a division been created between dairy ice cream, milk ices and ices—the description "ices "being made to refer to any of these products that did not contain a dairy product. To have done that would have simplified things very considerably.
The only other matter to which I want to refer is the anomaly produced by the Regulations in relation to cones and wafers.
I hope that before long the Minister will see fit to introduce supplementary regulations giving a clear indication to the purchaser, when purchasing not only prepacked products but also cones and wafers, whether he is buying the dairy product. My main point is that the Minister should give a clear indication to the industry and to the public that he regards the Regulations as merely one stage in the tightening up of standards in this direction.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not welcome the Regulations. They are a pity. I have never been able Ito understand exactly the argument why it was not possible to call an ice cream an ice cream—that is to say, something made

from the dairy product. I have heard the argument against it many times but have never been quite convinced by it.
The Regulations are certainly second-best. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) that they represent an improvement on the existing position. I also agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) and Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that this is not a big manufacturers' "racket ", because there is considerable evidence that in the last few months the big manufacturers have been spending considerable sums on advertising the dairy product, much more so than on their own traditional product. It was no fault of theirs that the public became accustomed to eating the inferior product during the war and immediately afterwards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has pointed out, a whole generation of children has grown up on the inferior product and, in fact, prefer it to the proper dairy product.
My reference to soap was not entirely facetious, because the products from which ice cream has in recent years been manufactured are exactly the same kind of non-milk fats and vegetable fats that go into the production of soap. If the public once got hold of the idea that what they were asking for was the same product as soap, they would be a little more attracted by the dairy product.

Mr. Hayman: The hon. Member will, I think, agree that the big manufacturers have attempted to bring dairy cream into their manufacture only since we have had criticism of the proposed Regulations in this House.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Willey: Perhaps the hon. Member will also remember when talking about soap that before the war, when we had a Conservative Government. we used milk for making buttons.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: The Minister will recollect that I have raised this matter with him privately on a number of occasions on behalf of the northern Dairy Shorthorn breeders. For the benefit of any hon. Members who do not know this


breed, let me explain that it is probably our best dual-purpose breed of cattle. It should certainly be encouraged a good deal more than it has been in the past. The milk that it produces has one of the highest butterfat contents. I hope that before long the Minister will get round to paying for this milk on a quality basis. That, however, is another point.
I give a limited welcome to the Regulations. They do not go nearly as far as I would wish, but at least they do something. They do two things. In future, the purchaser of ice cream will know the origin of the fat that it contains, and minimum requirements for fat content are being specified. Those are two limited advances, and as such I welcome them. Nevertheless, they are not nearly sufficient.
I feel strongly that no product should be sold and called ice cream which has nothing whatever to do with the name. I hope, with the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), that the Regulations will be regarded as intermediate Regulations, merely as a step forward to a goal, which I hope we shall reach before long.

10.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): We have had a most interesting debate on the Motion which is before the House and which, I must remind the House, is a Prayer to annul these Regulations. It is a Prayer which, I think, was moved without great fervency from the point of view of expecting that it would succeed. I think we can acknowledge that in moving it the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) merely wished to bring out a number of points and that he was not really hoping to persuade the House that the Regulations should be annulled. I accept that as a necessary way of discussing the matter, and I am glad that we have this opportunity tonight of doing so.
I hope to be able to show the House why these Regulations should be given an opportunity to show their worth. Incidentally, I would say straight away that having listened carefully to all the arguments that have been adduced tonight I think that the simplest way to reply to the debate would be to read from

beginning to end the Report of the Food Standards Committee on which the Regulations are based, because it deals most effectively with every single argument put forward this evening.
I was glad to note that at the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Sunderland, North paid a real tribute to the Government when he spoke about the increased standard of living of the people. They are, in fact, eating three times as much ice cream now as ever before. That is a tribute which I accept and welcome from the hon. Gentleman as evidence of the benefit resulting from sound Conservative administration.
The criticisms made of these Regulations seem to be based largely on the feeling that we have not gone far enough; that the Regulations are good as far as they go. Had we gone further and decided that the words "ice cream" be used only for dairy ices a number of hon. Members would, apparently, have been happier. My right hon. Friend gave most careful thought to this point before coming to his decision and bringing forward these Regulations. But he felt that, after all, the words "ice cream" have now been used for nearly twenty years to denote a commodity which has been roughly, in its present form and which has not contained milk fat, though I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who said that it contained no cream or milk. I am sure he would realise that it contains an element of milk in the solids-not-fat, of which there is a minimum requirement of 7½per cent. Nevertheless, it does not contain milk fat.
My right hon. Friend felt that having been so long on the market in this form it would be unrealistic at present to expect the public to be looking for or expecting that what they were buying was, in fact, nothing but a milk product. However, my right 'hon. Friend saw the strength and substance of the claim that there should be some designation reserved for the product where the fat was restricted to a milk product. In this, he took exactly the line which the Food Standards Committee recommended when it proposed that we should use the term "dairy ice cream." That, in fact, as a number of hon. Members have said, has already been taken up by certain manufacturers, and, I believe, with great success.
There is an indication that there is a very real demand for this. It is significant, however, that it does, by its very nature, cost a bit more than other ice cream. That is one more reason, perhaps, why we should not have restricted the term "ice cream" merely to that product, because we do not want to restrict those who are, perhaps, not able or willing to pay the extra for the other commodity. We think it better to leave the existing nomenclature to cover that aspect.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North spent quite a lot of time referring to the Food Standards Committee's Report of 1950. He is always a bit out of date. I am basing my remarks on the Committee's Report of 1957. It is much better. It is, after all, the same Committee which has brought its views up to date. I suggest that the House, too, should be up to date and not delve in the backwoods, as the hon. Gentleman has been delving.

Mr. Willey: I referred to the 1950 Report only to point out that nothing had been done and that something ought to have been done a long time ago.

Mr. Godber: I would remind the hon. Member that the Labour Government were in power in 1950. Therefore, if his Government did not take any action he must not blame us for not having taken any, either. I do not wish to make a strong point of that at all. I was merely pointing out that we believe in taking the latest advice, and that is the advice on which we have based the Regulations.
The hon. Member mentioned two factors which he said should have some bearing on our attitude to this matter. He referred to the consumption of fresh milk having fallen. I agree that there was some fall when more foods of other types became available, but I think that he will agree, and will be glad, that consumption is rising now. The second factor was that we should be helping Commonwealth countries, particularly New Zealand, by the use of butter. One of these arguments on its own is sound, but used together they do not apply.
If the hon. Member is saying that the use of more home produced milk in making ice cream is the way to stimulate the consumption of milk, that is a perfectly sound argument. If he is saying that the use of New Zealand butter would be a help to that country and that if it

had been used in ice cream, it would have been fine. But he cannot expect the House to believe that both would happen. Ice cream manufacturers would utilise one or the other, but not both.

Mr. Willey: I do not want to pursue this further. This is one of our difficulties. We have to consider our own and Commonwealth production, particularly in the case of New Zealand, which depends upon our market for its dairy products. Therefore, we cannot divorce ourselves from Commonwealth production. It may be difficult for us, but we have to consider our own milk production with New Zealand's dairy production.

Mr. Godber: That is perfectly sound. There is nothing between us on that. I was merely trying to draw the distinction in the hon. Member's argument.
Generally, it is recognised that in these Regulations we seek to give people an opportunity, if they so wish, to have a dairy product for which they are willing, if necessary, to pay a little more. It will be available to them under the name "dairy ice cream." That is guaranteed to it and anyone buying it can be sure that it is a dairy product. To those like the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who prefer a little of what they fancy, the ordinary ice cream is available. Its quality, too, is safeguarded by the standards laid down in the Regulations. Those who wish to consume it are also safeguarded by the fact that it is to be clearly designated as containing fat other than milk fat. That must be displayed on the packaged ice cream.
One or two hon. Members have pointed out that that which was wrapped had this safeguard, but cones and wafers had not. That is a difficulty. I am sure that no one wishes that we should have a rubber stamp placed on ice cream as it comes out. The same hon. Members suggested that we should require that a placard, or something of that nature, should be displayed. But a lot of this ice cream is sold from barrows which have something displayed on them. Those barrows are covered to the extent of any advertisement.
The Regulation on labelling states:
No person shall publish, or be party to the publication of, any advertisement for ice-cream which includes any word or pictorial device


which refers to, or is suggestive of, butter, cream or milk or of anything connected with the dairy interest unless the ice-cream to which the advertisement relates contains no fat other than milk fat…
Any vendor's display must comply with that Regulation and that, to some extent, covers this point. I think that that is the answer to several hon. Members who raised the point.

Mr. Bowen: Does the description "ice cream" itself come into that category?

Mr. Godber: I think that the description of ice cream on the barrow will have to be qualified in some way, so as not to suggest the dairy. I think that the hon. and learned Member will see that that is being done in some cases already.

Dr. Stross: Is there not another safeguard, that if anybody in the street goes to the barrow and asks for dairy ice cream and gets something which, on analysis, is found not to contain any dairy products, there is a very severe penalty? Is there not?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member. That is perfectly true. If anybody asks for dairy ice cream he must be given dairy ice cream, which contains only milk fat.

Mr. Bowen: Assume, for example, that the barrow simply displays the caption "ice cream "and it does not contain any dairy product. Do I understand that that is in itself an offence?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I think that where there appear merely the words "ice cream "a warning would appear somewhere on the barrow that it is of non-milk fat. That is my interpretation. I will ascertain that, and write to the hon. and learned Member if I am wrong. I am now told that I am not right. It is only if some description relating to a cow appears that the term "ice cream" in itself is not sufficient. I am sorry that I was mistaken. I did not wish to mislead the hon. and learned Member on the point.

Mr. Short: That means that if the term "ice cream" is on the barrow, and nothing else, there is nothing at all to indicate what kind of fat that ice cream contains.

Mr. Godber: That is perfectly true. That was the point the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) was seeking to ascertain, and which I have now verified as the case.
However, the House should remember that if we are specifying dairy ice cream as being a kind which is guaranteed to be a dairy product that in itself is a safeguard, and those who are selling dairy ice cream will wish to see that the public are quite aware that that is a kind which contains dairy products, and people will be able to see that other ice cream is a separate product.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also discussed the question of standards which, he claimed, should be high. That is a very valid point to have brought out, and I can quite understand the view which he expressed, and which has been expressed by other hon. Members tonight. It may well be said that now that more supplies are available it is reasonable to raise standards.
Here, again, I would say that the Food Standards Committee showed quite clearly its view on this. This ties up with the very complicated question of over-run, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) referred. As the Food Standards Committee said, till we can solve effectively the method of dealing with over-run and of being able to check effectively how it can be controlled, there is little paint in trying to deal with this question of higher standards.
In paragraph 25 of its Report the Committee set out the position clearly, that a number of
The nationally distributed brands of ice cream…already contain 10 per cent. or more of fat in the mix
and would readily conform to the extra standard. The small manufacturers, however, who do not blow it up with so much air, use a lower percentage of fat, yet because there is not so much air in the mixture there is actually more ice cream in the tub. Therefore, to impose higher standards at the moment, until we clear up the question of over-run, would be to legislate in favour of larger firms against the smaller ones, and would not safeguard the consumer.
The last sentences of paragraph 25 read:
To increase the minimum requirement for the mix without taking any account of overrun would really have the effect of compelling one type of manufacturer to conform to a higher standard than his competitors. To offset this he might well be obliged to increase the overrun and thus there would be no ultimate benefit to the consumer. We do not, therefore, think that an increase in the standard unrelated to overrun would be justified. The current standard of 5 per cent. in practice provides the public with a reasonable measure of protection and, until such time as the problem of overrun can be satisfactorily dealt with, we recommend that no change should be made in the present provision.
That puts in a nutshell the reason why we have not set the increased standards. If and when we are able to deal with the question of over-run, we will be very willing to look at this question again.
A working party has been set up by the Food Standards Committee to thrash out this difficult problem of over-run. When the working party reports, we shall certainly be willing to consider the matter again, but this is a difficult problem and we do not expect to receive the report for some time. Indeed, the Committee says in its Report that two or three years is likely to be the time.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had an agreeable suggestion to make when he said that ice cream could take the place of cod liver oil for children. As one who had to consume a great deal of cod-liver oil in his youth, I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. He has medical knowledge which I do not have, and if he thinks that dairy ice cream is a satisfactory substitute, I hope that he will publicise that as widely as possible. However, I do not feel that we can think of it in terms of the Government providing it as a free supply to school children, popular though that might be.
The hon. Member also mentioned cream buns and referred to Section 47 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, made it clear, when moving the Second Reading of that Measure, that ice cream was not covered by the then Clause 47 because it was not a substance which physically resembled cream, and I do not think that Section 47 can be invoked on this issue.
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that dairy ice cream is readily available in the House of Commons and that hon. Members make use of it. I entirely agree that once one has tasted dairy ice cream, there is little doubt about one's preference for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has an unusual menu—champagne, Cheshire cheese and dairy ice cream—but I do not think that champagne or Cheshire cheese can be discussed under these Regulations. I note his point, but the important thing is that we should publicise dairy ice cream as being the genuine product, and I think that that largely meets what he had in mind. His other point, about possibly misleading advertisements, is covered by the reference to Section 2 (3) of Statutory Instrument No. 471, which lays down the details of advertisements which would be misleading.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) puzzled me with his reference to surrendering to big firms. I have never heard greater nonsense than that, if he will forgive me for saying so. There has been no question of surrendering to big firms. We have found a practical and sound compromise which will work and be effective and not be more favourable to the big firms than to anyone else.

Mr. Hayman: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a moment ago he was commending dairy ice cream as one of the finest things available in the House of Commons? If it is good for the House of Commons, why not for the general public, so that it could keep its old name of ice cream?

Mr. Godber: We want it not only for the House of Commons, but for the general public. We are not a distinct race here. We think that it is good food for the general public, too. Firms large and small are producing dairy ice cream and selling it to the general public, and good luck to them. I do not think that there is any point there at all.
I have attempted to deal with the other points which have been raised, except that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), who referred to breeds of cattle. If he expects me to agree with him he will be disappointed. I have to be impartial in


these matters, although, representing a Lincolnshire constituency, I have my own views about breeds. I do not know whether he is suggesting that types of ice cream should be related to the breed of cattle from which the milk was obtained. I should not want to see "Aberdeen Angus ice cream" on sale, or anything of that sort.

Mr. Short: The breeders of cattle which produce milk with a high butterfat content are anxious to see these Regulations carried further. If the Minister does not agree with me, he should visit Westmorland and Durham and see some of the farms where this excellent dual-purpose breed is produced.

Mr. Godber: I observe that the hon. Member was not aware that I was in that part of the country recently. It would appear to be of little use my travelling about if he is not aware of it.

Mr. Short: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the invitation or not?

Mr. Godber: I cannot pursue that matter any further.
While I am grateful for the points which have been raised, I believe that these Regulations are a fair and just compromise. Once the public gets to know the different grades of ice cream they will be readily distinguished, and this should go a long way to meeting the need, although I have indicated that as and when the question of over-run has been solved we will be willing to look at the point again.
With that information, I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will be willing to withdraw the Motion.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Wiley: The House is obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his careful and courteous reply. He has stated that the Regulations will be subject to review, particularly so far as standards are concerned. He has suggested, with his usual Parliamentary acumen, that I might be willing that the Motion should be withdrawn, and, if the House will allow me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SMOKING (CHILDREN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I wish to take the attention of the House from the agreeable subject of ice cream to that of the smoking of cigarettes by young people. The reason that I do so will be within the recollection of the House. It arises out of answers given to me by the Minister of Health at Question Time on 23rd February, when he told the House that last August he sent a circular to local health authorities asking for their reports on the measures that they had taken to publicise the risks attached to smoking, and inviting suggestions. He said:
I have now received those reports and I am studying them and am considering in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education whether any further measures are now called for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 801.]
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what conclusions the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education have now reached as a result of the replies to the circular and what further action they propose to take; and secondly, to urge them to launch, without delay, a really vigorous and urgent campaign to discourage smoking by young people and to prevent their being encouraged to do so by the business interests concerned.
I should like to apologise for detaining the Parliamentary Secretary after what I know has been a very exhausting week for him in this House, and I assure him that I do not propose to try to score any points off him or anybody else. My purpose is only to express my own very strong feelings on the subject and to echo those of many eminent members of the medical profession who have grave misgivings about the dangers to which the health of young people is now exposed. I assure him that my intervention tonight is not a vote-catching operation. Indeed, if it were not for the high intelligence of the people of Swindon this speech might have the opposite effect, because my constituency contains a cigarette factory.
The attention of the British public was first drawn to the dangers connected with


cigarette smoking by a report in the British Medical Journal published in September, 1950, by Professor A. Bradford Hill and Dr. Richard Doll. It contained these words:
It is concluded that smoking is an important factor in the cause of carcinoma of the lung.
I have been advised by an eminent Harley Street physician that their report alone has established a sufficiently strong case for a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer and justifies the discouragement of young people from starting a habit which it is difficult to check, which does them no good and almost certainly does considerable harm.
Nevertheless, a period of nearly seven years went by until in June, 1957, the Government accepted a special report from the Medical Research Council to the same effect. During that period it is estimated that over 100,000 people died from lung cancer in England and Wales, and no effective action was taken by the Government during that period. The Medical Research Council reported and, on 27th June, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health made a statement in this House in which he said that the Council
… has advised the Government that the most reasonable interpretation of the very great increase in deaths from lung cancer in males during the past twenty-five years is that a major part of it is caused by smoking tobacco, particularly heavy cigarette smoking.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on:
The Government feel that it is right to ensure that this latest authoritative opinion is brought effectively to public notice, so that everyone may know the risks involved in smoking. The Government consider that these facts should be made known to all those with responsibility for health education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 426.]
As I have said, my first purpose is to try to extract from the Parliamentary Secretary a statement of what has been done since that time. A number of circulars have been issued by his Department, and one of them has been repeated to local education authorities by the Ministry of Education, and in the report of his Department for last year there is an explanation and repetition of the conclusions of the Medical Research Council and the statement:
The Minister acting on this statement has requested all local health authorities to disseminate the known facts and the considered

opinions of the Council so that everyone may be made aware of the risks involved in smoking.
As 1 have said, the Department has had the report from the local health authorities since September of last year. Therefore, my first questions are: What exactly did that report tell the Department, and will the hon. Gentleman give the House some details of what the local authorities did as a result of the circulars issued by his right hon. Friend? Is he satisfied with the result of the action taken so far, and what further action do the Government propose to take through the local health authorities?
I should like to ask specifically what is being done in schools to bring the dangers of smoking to the attention of young people. I appreciate that there is a difficulty, as this is a matter where there is divided Ministerial responsibility. The Ministry of Education, the Board of Trade and even the Treasury are concerned to some extent in this matter, as well as the Ministry of Health.
My main purpose is to draw attention to the dangers facing young people, and I think that I ought to explain my personal attitude to this problem. I have no wish to interfere with the pleasure that may be derived by old people, old-age pensioners and others, who have had the smoking habit for many years and enjoy an occasional pipe or cigarette. Secondly, I do not wish to interfere with the middle-aged smoker who would like to break himself of the habit but cannot do so. Until three years ago I was an appreciably heavy smoker and I got to the stage where I derived little satisfaction from a cigarette but a great deal of irritation when I was not smoking. I was fortunate in being able to stop smoking.
I do not attach urgent importance to what happens to people in those age categories, but I think that what happens to young people and children is important. I shall do my best to see that my own children never develop the smoking habit because of the danger involved, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and every other reasonable parent will share that view.
The information which has become available lately about the extension of smoking among young people is alarming. I was looking at a report by Dr. Raven, of the Marie Curie Memorial


Foundation, who did research into 141 schools recently and found that many children started smoking at the age of eight. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not shocked by that, I should be very surprised.
There was a report in The Times a couple of months ago in which reference was made to an investigation in Oxfordshire into smoking among school children, and it was found that a very large number of children between 11 and 19, boys and girls, had taken to smoking and appeared to have already developed into heavy smokers. The latest figures which are available of smoking generally in this country show a tremendously sharp increase between 1955 and the present time. It is estimated that at present 2,000 million cigarettes are smoked in this country every week. That represents a total of almost 52 cigarettes for every person a week. It includes a large number of persons, not only under 21 but under 15. The Parliamentary Secretary may have seen another report in The Times last year of an investigation by a teacher in a school who found that a large number of his pupils aged 14 smoked. One said he smoked "only forty a week "and thought that "not bad," and another asked,
Why don't they stop advertising them if they kill you? 
I say straight away that my personal view is that advertising of cigarettes and tobacco ought to be prohibited at once, if necessary by legislation, as has been done in other countries. For example, it was done in 1956 in Sweden. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that enormous sums are spent in advertising in the Press and on television of tobacco products, especially cigarettes. I was looking the other day at the report of an investigation carried out into the incidence of smoking—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member must realise that to remedy that particular part of his grievance would involve legislation, which would be out of order on the Adjournment.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker, but there might be other ways in which the Government could look at the problem. However, I shall not labour the point, except to draw the

attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the very much more vigorous action which is taken in a number of countries to control the ways in which manufacturers can operate than the action taken in Britain. This not only applies in Socialist Scandinavia, but in capitalist America. The best interests of tobacco manufacturers and those working for them are in direct conflict with the national interest and represents a direct menace to the nation's health. I very much hope that in due course measures can be taken to deal with that.
In this context, I remind the Minister that when an attempt was made to counter the enormously expensive advertising campaign by the tobacco interests by arranging for a poster to be put out by the Government-sponsored organisation, the Central Council for Health Education, about the dangers of smoking, that poster was banned by the British Poster Advertising Association and was never seen by the British public. There is one explanation of the reluctance of the Government to deal more energetically with this matter which is very widely believed by simple people in this country, and also by quite a number of people who are not so simple, including a number of doctors and eminent people in the medical world who think they see a sinister connection between the inactivity of the Government and the enormous revenue derived by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer from the tax on tobacco. This idea was not discouraged by the Chancellor when he said in a speech at Barnstaple on 10th January, 1957:
We at the Treasury do not want too many people to stop smoking".
I suggest it is about time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought that comment up to date by saying something different.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in 1956–57 £701·8 million reached the Exchequer as a result of the Tobacco Duty and that in the last financial year that had risen, with the very sharp rise the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco, to £736·4 million. It is not surprising that many people see a sinister connection between this revenue and the Government's reluctance to take more vigorous action.
I sum up by saying that my purpose is to elicit information from the Parliamentary Secretary about what his Departments arid Departments associated with it in this matter have been doing recently, particularly as a result of the replies of local health authorities to the inquiries which he made about their activities last year. Secondly, I urge him to consider certain specific action. I think that the steps which he should take should include a ban on slot machines, the existence of which means that cigarettes are readily available to young people at any time of the day or night; the ending of the cheap cigarette and tobacco ration to young Service men, particularly National Service men in the Forces; an effective Government campaign designed specifically to dissuade young people from smoking, using all the techniques of modern advertising and the mass media which are available to the Government; and finally, more vigorous action to counter the advertising by the tobacco interests.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some consolation to the many people who feel greatly distressed about this problem, including eminent members of the medical profession, who cannot understand why we should still be spending large sums of money on cancer research when, having found one direct connection between a habit and the disease, we take no effective action to stop that habit.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I am obliged to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) for having raised this matter tonight because it is one of great public importance. It is an appropriate moment to answer the various points which he made, to state the present position and to say what we have had in mind to do in the future about it.
The hon. Member stated very clearly the history of the way in which concern on this matter has built up. He is right in saying that it was an article by Dr. Doll and Professor Bradford Hill in late 1950, which suggested a statistical relationship between smoking and lung cancer, which started public concern about the matter in this country. There are no grounds for doubt about the statistical association. Experimental work

has not yet provided irrefutable proof of tobacco smoking causing cancer, but the evidence is growing. Two known cancer-producing agents have been identified in tobacco smoke, but whether they directly cause cancer has not yet been proved.
I do not want to rest my argument too much on that, but I am bound to say that Lord Cohen, a very respectable authority, drawing attention publicly to these dangers a few days ago at Harrogate, said that there is the strongest statistical evidence to show that the more cigarettes a man smokes the more liable he is to develop cancer of the lung.
The Government's attitude, faced with this evidence, has been consistent. We took the view that the facts on the likely connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer must be brought effectively to public notice so that all should know the possible risks involved.
The hon. Gentleman described quite correctly the action taken at the time. There was the distribution to local authorities of Circular 7/57, which enclosed the Medical Research Council's Report and urged local authorities to publicise these warnings as part of their health education functions under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act. To help them, they were told that the Central Council for Health Education already had publicity material available and that more was being prepared to give further aid in the campaigns that we urged the local authorities to start.
It is entirely appropriate—and although the hon. Gentleman did not mention this, there has been a little criticism of our action—that we should have chosen the local authorities to he the Government's agents far disseminating the information to the public. As I say, they already have health education functions under Section 28, and it also fits in very well with what they are already doing so successfully in connection with such matters as polio immunisation, clean food, home accidents and other matters in which it is necessary to bring certain risks and dangers to the knowledge of 'the public.
Following the issue of the circular, local authorities were given a year in which to take action. Just over a year later, a questionnaire was sent to them so that we could gather their reports, proceed


to study them and reach conclusions. It is in this aspect that the hon. Gentleman is greatly interested. He wants to know what kind of information we received, how we assessed it, and what we propose to do about it.
The local authorities co-operated very well, and the information we received can be summarised as follows. Of the local authorities circulated, 90 per cent. accepted the need for a publicity campaign to bring to public notice these likely risks. They mostly concentrated on children and young persons, and I think that they were absolutely right in that. It is far easier to prevent a habit being formed than it is to attempt to change it after it has become chronic. It is also easier to approach children en masse because of educational factors; they are grouped together in schools and so on.
We got interesting information on the variety of media used by local authorities to get their message over. They used the local Press, posters, pamphlets, films, lectures, discussion groups, family visiting and other forms of personal contact. They did quite well there. Some of them made use of outside bodies—smaller local authorities or voluntary organisations—to help them in their work.
The general assessment of the public reaction to all this is interesting. On the whole, local authorities came to the conclusion that there was a very wide degree of apathy. Some felt that there was some increased public awareness of the risk but, on the whole, we got a general impression of considerable public apathy.
Following on that, a number of suggestions were made for further action. and those are now being studied. I should say that many are not the responsibility of the health department. I do not say that on that account they are necessarily neglected, but I cannot discuss them as fully, perhaps, as otherwise I might be able to do. Nevertheless, we have reached a point where we have to consider seriously what further steps would be appropriate in this matter.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Obviously, in a debate of this kind, it is impossible to summarise adequately the replies to the circular. Would the Department consider publishing a report on the replies received from local authorities?

Mr. Thompson: I will certainly look into that. The information is readily enough available.
In assessing what the local authorities did, I am sure that they were right in concentrating their efforts on young children and adolescents. In this direction, I cannot stress too much the importance of parental action. That may sound platitudinous, but there is no doubt that if the parents can be persuaded to take a serious view of their responsibilities and to show, not only by precept but by actual example, the serious view they take, the effect on young people is undoubtedly very great. Indeed, it would probably be much greater than the combined effect of many of the other well-known measures of propaganda, including leaflets, lectures, visits, posters and all the recognised media. In this matter, it is important to enlist the active co-operation of parents.
I know that the hon. Member is anxious that we should move further and faster in the steps which he thinks we should take in this matter. While we take a serious view of the possible risks and of our own responsibilities, we are on difficult ground when we consider what big effort can be made. While I agree entirely that the effort should be confined or directed largely at the young, it is difficult to do it to the young alone. Questions of the liberty of the subject are involved.
There is the fact, although I do not place a lot of weight on it, that the state of scientific knowledge on this matter, although it is clearly tending to one conclusion, is incomplete. In addition, some of the proposals advocated by the hon. Member involve legislation, which we cannot discuss tonight. Nevertheless, it is true to say that a general desire was expressed by the local authorities for more publicity on this subject. That is a request which we have already taken up and we have discussed the matter with the Central Council for Health Education, which is ready to increase the effort it is making in this field. This will go some way to meet the position. I give the hon. Member the assurance that we shall continue to keep it under close observation as time goes on and as more scientific information becomes available to us.
The hon. Member referred to a number of specific measures which, he felt, would


be helpful in checking this abuse. For reasons of order, I am unable to deal with some of them. But, in so far as they concern other Departments, I will certainly draw their attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight. However, for the immediate future, I think that the right thing to do is to increase the publicity which we are putting out through the local authorities on this subject.
As I say, we have consulted the Central Council for Health Education on the matter. It is ready to help us, and we shall go ahead on these lines and see how we get on. We shall watch the situation closely, ready to take further action if and when that seems appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.